Upsilon production cross section in pp collisions at s=7
TeV
The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share
how this access benefits you. Your story matters.
Citation
V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration) "Upsilon production
cross section in pp collisions at s=7TeV" Phys. Rev. D 83,
112004 (2011)
As Published
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.112004
Publisher
American Physical Society
Version
Final published version
Accessed
Thu May 26 19:19:02 EDT 2016
Citable Link
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/66188
Terms of Use
Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy
and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the
publisher's site for terms of use.
Detailed Terms
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
pffiffiffi
Upsilon production cross section in pp collisions at s ¼ 7 TeV
V. Khachatryan et al.*
(CMS Collaboration)
(Received 27 December 2010; published 15 June 2011)
pffiffiffi
The ð1SÞ, ð2SÞ, and ð3SÞ production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at s ¼ 7 TeV are
measured using a data sample collected with the CMS detector at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated
luminosity of 3:1 0:3 pb1 . Integrated over the rapidity range jyj < 2, we find the product of the ð1SÞ
production cross section and branching fraction to dimuons to be ðpp ! ð1SÞXÞ Bðð1SÞ !
þ Þ ¼ 7:37 0:13þ0:61
0:42 0:81 nb, where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic,
and the third is associated with the estimation of the integrated luminosity of the data sample. This cross
section is obtained assuming unpolarized ð1SÞ production. With the assumption of fully transverse or
fully longitudinal production polarization, the measured cross section changes by about 20%. We also
report the measurement of the ð1SÞ, ð2SÞ, and ð3SÞ differential cross sections as a function of
transverse momentum and rapidity.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.112004
PACS numbers: 13.85.Ni, 14.40.Pq
I. INTRODUCTION
The hadroproduction of quarkonia is not understood.
None of the existing theories successfully reproduces
both the differential cross section and the polarization
measurements of charmonium and bottomonium states
[1]. It is expected that studying quarkonium hadroproduction at higher center-of-mass energies and over a wider
rapidity range will facilitate significant improvements in
our understanding. Measurements of the resonances are
particularly important since the theoretical calculations are
more robust than for the charmonium family due to the
heavy bottom quark and the absence of b-hadron feeddown. Measurements of quarkonium hadroproduction
cross sections and production polarizations made at the
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will allow important tests of
several alternative theoretical approaches. These include
nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) factorization [2], where
quarkonium production includes color-octet components,
and calculations made in the color-singlet model including
next-to-leading-order (NLO) corrections [3] which reproduce the differential cross sections measured at the
Tevatron experiments [4,5] without requiring a significant
color-octet contribution.
This paper presents the first measurement of the ð1SÞ,
ð2SÞ, and ð3SÞ production
cross sections in protonpffiffiffi
proton collisions at s ¼ 7 TeV, using data recorded
by the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment
between April and September 2010. In these measurements, the signal efficiencies are determined with data.
Consequently, Monte Carlo simulation is used only in the
*Full author list given at the end of the article.
Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and
the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.
1550-7998= 2011=83(11)=112004(27)
evaluation of the geometric and kinematic acceptances.
The document is organized as follows. Sec. II contains a
short description of the CMS detector. Sec. III presents the
data collection, the trigger and offline event selections, the
reconstruction of the resonances, and the Monte Carlo
simulation. Throughout this paper, and ðnSÞ are used
to denote the ð1SÞ, ð2SÞ, and ð3SÞ resonances. The
detector acceptance and the efficiency to reconstruct resonances that decay to two muons in CMS are discussed
in Secs. IV and V, respectively. In Sec. VI the fitting
technique employed to extract the cross section is presented. The evaluation of systematic uncertainties on the
measurements is described in Sec. VII. Sec. VIII presents
the ðnSÞ cross section results and comparisons to existing
measurements at lower collision energies [4,5] and to the
predictions of the PYTHIA [6] event generator.
II. THE CMS DETECTOR
The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid, of 6 m inner diameter, providing a
field of 3.8 T. Inside the solenoid in order of increasing
distance from the interaction point are the silicon tracker,
the crystal electromagnetic calorimeter, and the brass/scintillator hadron calorimeter. Muons are detected by three
types of gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel
return yoke: drift tubes (DT), cathode strip chambers
(CSC), and resistive plate chambers (RPC). The muon
measurement covers the pseudorapidity range jj < 2:4,
where ¼ ln½tanð=2Þ and the polar angle is measured from the z-axis, which points along the counterclockwise beam direction. The silicon tracker consists of
pixel detectors (three barrel layers and two forward disks
on either side of the detector, comprising 66 106
100 150 m2 pixels) followed by microstrip detectors
(ten barrel layers plus three inner disks and nine forward
disks on either side of the detector, with 10 106 strips of
112004-1
Ó 2011 CERN, for the CMS Collaboration
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
pitch between 80 and 184 m). The detector systems are
aligned and calibrated using LHC collision data and
cosmic-ray muons [7]. Because of the strong magnetic
field and the fine granularity of the silicon tracker, the
muon transverse-momentum measurement, pT , based on
information from the silicon tracker alone has a resolution
of about 1% for a typical muon in this analysis. The silicon
tracker provides the primary vertex position with 20 m
accuracy. The two-level CMS trigger system selects events
of interest for permanent storage. The first trigger level
(L1), composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeter and muon detectors to
select events in less than 1 s. The high-level trigger
(HLT) software algorithms, executed on a farm of
commercial processors, further reduce the event rate
using information from all detector subsystems. A more
detailed description of the CMS detector can be found
elsewhere [8].
III. DATA SAMPLE AND EVENT
RECONSTRUCTION
response of the CMS detector is simulated with a
[15] Monte Carlo (MC) program.
Simulated events are processed with the same reconstruction algorithms as used for data.
GEANT4-based
C. Offline muon reconstruction
In this analysis, a muon candidate is defined as a charged
track reconstructed in the silicon tracker and associated
with a compatible signal in the muon detectors. Tracks are
reconstructed using a Kalman filter technique which starts
from hits in the pixel system and extrapolates outward to
the silicon strip tracker. Further details may be found
in Ref. [16].
Quality criteria are applied to tracks to reject muons
from kaon and pion decays. Tracks are required to have at
least 12 hits in the silicon tracker, at least one of which
must be in the pixel detector, and a track-fit 2 per degree
of freedom smaller than 5. In addition tracks are required to
emanate from a cylinder of radius 2 mm and length 50 cm
centered on the pp interaction region and parallel to the
beam line. Muon candidates are required to satisfy:
A. Event selection
The data sample used in this analysis was recorded by
the CMS detector in pp collisions at a center-of-mass
energy of 7 TeV. The sample corresponds to a total integrated luminosity of 3:1 0:3 pb1 [9]. The maximum
instantaneous luminosity was 1031 cm2 s1 , and event
pileup was negligible. Data are included in the analysis if
the silicon tracker, the muon detectors, and the trigger
were performing well, and the luminosity measurement
is available.
The trigger requires the detection of two muons at the
hardware level, without any further selection at the HLT.
The coincidence of two muon signals without an explicit
pT requirement is sufficient to allow the dimuon trigger
without prescaling. All three muon systems—DT, CSC,
and resistive plate chambers—take part in the trigger
decision.
Anomalous events arising from beam-gas interactions
or beam scraping in the beam transport system near the
interaction point, which produce a large number of hits in
the pixel detector, are removed with offline software filters
[10]. A good primary vertex is also required, as defined
in Ref. [10].
B. Monte Carlo simulation
Upsilon events are simulated using PYTHIA 6.412 [6],
which generates events based on the leading-order colorsinglet and octet mechanisms, with nonrelativistic QCD
matrix elements tuned by comparing calculations with the
CDF data [11] and applying the normalization and wavefunctions as recommended in Ref. [12]. The simulation
includes the generation of b states. Final-state radiation
(FSR) is implemented using PHOTOS [13,14]. The
p
T > 3:5 GeV=c
if j j < 1:6;
p
T
if 1:6 < j j < 2:4:
> 2:5 GeV=c
or
(1)
These kinematic criteria are chosen to ensure that the
trigger and muon reconstruction efficiencies are high
and not rapidly changing within the acceptance window
of the analysis.
The momentum measurement of charged tracks in the
CMS detector is affected by systematic uncertainties
caused by imperfect knowledge of the magnetic field,
the amount of material, and subdetector misalignments,
as well as by biases in the algorithms which fit the track
trajectory. A mismeasurement of track momenta results in
a shift and broadening of the reconstructed peaks of dimuon resonances. An improved understanding of the CMS
magnetic field, detector alignment, and material budget is
obtained from cosmic-ray muon and LHC collision data
[7,17,18]. Residual effects are determined by studying the
dependence of the reconstructed J= c dimuon invariantmass distribution on the muon kinematics [19]. The
transverse momentum corrected for the residual scale distortion is parametrized as pT ¼ ð1 þ a1 þ a2 2 Þ p0T ,
where p0T is the measured muon transverse momentum,
a1 ¼ ð3:8 1:9Þ 104 , and a2 ¼ ð3:0 0:7Þ 104 .
Coefficients for terms linear in and quadratic in p0T and
p0T are consistent with zero and are not included.
D. event selection
To identify events containing an decay, muon candidates with opposite charges are paired, and the invariant
mass of the muon pair is required to be between 8 and
14 GeV=c2 . The longitudinal separation between the two
muons at their points of closest approach to the beam axis
112004-2
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
is required to be less than 2 cm. The two muon helices are
fit with a common vertex constraint, and events are retained
if the fit 2 probability is larger than 0.1%. The dimuon
candidate is required to have passed the trigger selection. If
multiple dimuon candidates are found in the same event,
the candidate with the best vertex quality is retained; the
fraction of signal candidates rejected by this requirement is
about 0.2%. Finally, the rapidity, y, of the candidates is
required to satisfy jyj < 2 because the acceptance diminishes rapidly at larger rapidity. The rapidity is defined as
Eþpk
1
2 lnðEpk Þ,
y¼
where E is the energy and pk the momentum parallel to the beam axis of the muon pair.
The dimuon invariant-mass spectrum in the ðnSÞ region for the dimuon transverse-momentum interval
pT < 30 GeV=c is shown in Fig. 1 for the pseudorapidity
intervals j j < 2:4 (top) and j j < 1:0 (bottom). The
ð1SÞ mass resolution is determined from the fit function
described in Sec. VI. We obtain a mass resolution of
96 2 MeV=c2 when muons from the entire pseudorapidity range are included and 69 2 MeV=c2 when both
muons satisfy j j < 1. The observed resolutions are in
good agreement with the predictions from MC simulation.
IV. ACCEPTANCE
þ
The ! acceptance of the CMS detector is
defined as the product of two terms. The first is the fraction
of upsilons of given pT and y where each of the two muons
satisfies Eq. (1). The second is the probability that when
there are only two muons in the event both can be reconstructed in the tracker without requiring the quality criteria.
Both terms are evaluated by simulation and parametrized
as a function of the pT and rapidity of the .
The acceptance is calculated from the ratio
A ðpT ; yÞ ¼
FIG. 1 (color online). The dimuon invariant-mass distribution
in the vicinity of the ðnSÞ resonances for the full rapidity
covered by the analysis (top) and for the subset of events where
the pseudorapidity of each muon satisfies j j < 1 (bottom).
The solid line shows the result of a fit to the invariant-mass
distribution before accounting for acceptance and efficiency,
with the dashed line denoting the background component.
Details of the fit are described in Sec. VI.
Nrec
ðpT ; yÞ
;
Ngen ðpT ; yÞ
(2)
where Ngen
ðpT ; yÞ is the number of upsilons generated in a
ðp ; yÞ is the number reconstructed in
ðpT ; yÞ bin, while Nrec
T
the same ðpT ; yÞ region but now using the reconstructed,
rather than generated, variables. In addition, the numerator
requires that the two muons reconstructed in the silicon
tracker satisfy Eq. (1).
The acceptance is evaluated with a signal MC sample in
which the decay to two muons is generated with the
EVTGEN [20] package including the effects of final-state
radiation. There are no particles in the event besides the ,
its daughter muons, and final-state radiation. The upsilons
are generated uniformly in pT and rapidity. This sample is
then fully simulated and reconstructed with the CMS detector simulation software to assess the effects of multiple
scattering and finite resolution of the detector. Systematic
uncertainties arising from the dependence of the measurement of the cross section on the MC description of the pT
spectrum and resolution are evaluated in Sec. VII. The
acceptance is calculated for two-dimensional (2-D) bins
of size ð1 GeV=c; 0:1Þ in the reconstructed ðpT ; yÞ of the ,
and it is used in candidate-by-candidate yield corrections.
The 2-D acceptance map for unpolarized ð1SÞ is
shown in the top plot of Fig. 2. The acceptance varies
with dimuon mass. This is shown in the bottom plot of
Fig. 2, which displays the acceptance integrated over the
rapidity range as a function of pT for each upsilon resonance. The transverse-momentum threshold for muon detection, especially in the forward region, is small compared
112004-3
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
1
0.9
1.6
0.8
1.4
0.7
1.2
0.6
1
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
bisection of the incoming proton directions in the rest frame.
V. EFFICIENCY
A
|y
Υ (1S)
|
1.8
Υ (1S)
2
0
0
10
20
Υ (1S)
p
T
0.8
30
0
0.75
0.7
0.65
AΥ
0.6
0.55
|yΥ |<2
Υ (3S)
Υ (2S)
Υ (1S)
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
"ðtotalÞ ¼ "ðtrigjidÞ "ðidjtrackÞ "ðtrackjacceptedÞ
"trig "id "track :
(GeV/c)
0.5
We factor the total muon efficiency into three conditional terms,
30
pΥT (GeV/c)
FIG. 2. (Top) Unpolarized ð1SÞ acceptance as a function of
pT and y; (bottom) the unpolarized ð1SÞ, ð2SÞ, and ð3SÞ
acceptances integrated over rapidity as a function of pT .
to the upsilon mass. Therefore, when the decays at rest,
both muons are likely to reach the muon detector. When
the has a modest boost, the probability is greater that
one muon will be below the muon detection threshold and
the acceptance decreases until the transverse momentum
reaches about 5 GeV=c, after which the acceptance rises
slowly. The production polarization of the strongly
influences the muon angular distributions and is expected
to change as a function of pT . In order to account for this,
the acceptance is calculated for five extreme polarization
scenarios [21]: unpolarized and polarized longitudinally
and transversely with respect to a polarization axis defined
in two different reference frames. The first is the helicity
frame (HX), where the polarization axis is given by the
flight direction of the in the center-of-mass system of the
colliding beams. The second is the Collins-Soper (CS)
frame [22], where the polarization axis is given as the
(3)
The tracking efficiency, "track , combines the efficiency that
the accepted track of a muon from the ðnSÞ decay is
reconstructed in the presence of additional particles in the
silicon tracker, as determined with a track-embedding
technique [23], and the efficiency for the track to satisfy
quality criteria. The muon identification efficiency, "id , is
the probability that the track in the silicon tracker is
identified as a muon. The efficiency that an identified
muon satisfies the trigger is denoted by "trig .
The tag-and-probe (T&P) technique [23] is a data-based
method used in this analysis to determine the track quality,
muon identification, and muon trigger efficiencies. It utilizes dimuons from J= c decays to provide a sample of
probe objects. A well-identified muon, the tag, is combined
with a second object in the event, the probe, and the
invariant mass is computed. The tag-probe pairs are divided into two samples, depending on whether the probe
satisfies or not the criteria for the efficiency being evaluated. The two tag-probe mass distributions contain a J= c
peak. The integral of the peak is the number of probes that
satisfy or fail to satisfy the imposed criteria. The efficiency
parameter is extracted from a simultaneous unbinned
maximum-likelihood fit to both mass distributions.
The J= c resonance is utilized for T&P efficiency measurements as it provides a large-yield and statisticallyindependent dimuon sample [24]. To avoid trigger bias,
events containing a tag-probe pair have been collected with
triggers that do not impose requirements on the probe from
the detector subsystem related to the efficiency measurement. For the track-quality efficiency measurement, the
trigger requires two muons at L1 in the muon system
without using the silicon tracker. For the muon identification and trigger efficiencies, the trigger requires a muon at
the HLT, that is matched to the tag, paired with a silicon
track of opposite sign and the invariant mass of the pair is
required to be in the vicinity of the J= c mass.
The component of the tracking efficiency measured with
the track-embedding technique is well described by a
constant value of ð99:64 0:05Þ%. The efficiency of the
track-quality criteria measured by the T&P method is
likewise nearly uniform and has an average value of
ð98:66 0:05Þ%. Tracks satisfying the quality criteria
are the probes for the muon identification study. The
resulting single-muon identification efficiencies as a
function of p
T for six j j regions are shown in Fig. 3
112004-4
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
FIG. 3 (color online). Single-muon identification efficiencies as a function of p
T for six j j regions, measured from data using J= c
T&P (closed circles). The efficiencies determined with MC truth (triangles), J= c MC truth (open circles), and J= c MC T&P
(squares), used in the evaluation of systematic uncertainties, are also shown.
and Table I. The probes that satisfy the muon identification
criteria are in turn the probes for the study of the trigger
efficiency. The resulting trigger efficiencies for the same
p
T and j j regions are shown in Fig. 4 and Table II.
Figs. 3 and 4 also show single-muon identification and
trigger efficiencies, respectively, determined from a highstatistics MC simulation. The single-muon efficiencies
determined with the T&P technique in the data are found
to be consistent, over most of the kinematic range of
interest, with the efficiencies obtained from the MC
simulation utilizing the generator-level particle information (‘‘MC truth’’). Two exceptions are the single-muon
trigger efficiency for the intervals j j < 0:4 and 0:8 <
j j < 1:2, where the efficiency is lower in data than in the
MC simulation. Both correspond to cases where the MC
simulation is known to not fully reproduce the detector
properties or performance: gaps in the DT coverage
(j j < 0:4) and suboptimal timing synchronization
TABLE I. Single-muon identification efficiencies, in percent, measured from J= c data with
T&P. The statistical uncertainties in the least significant digits are given in parentheses;
uncertainties less than 0.05 are denoted by 0. For asymmetric uncertainties the positive
uncertainty is reported first.
p
T
(GeV=c)
2.5–3.0
3.0–3.5
3.5–4.0
4.0–4.5
4.5–5.0
5.0–6.0
6.0–8.0
8.0–50.0
j j
0.0–0.4
83(2)
92(2)
99(1, 2)
98(2)
100(0, 2)
100(0, 2)
0.4–0.8
89(2)
95(2)
99(1, 3)
100(0, 1)
100(0, 1)
97(3)
0.8–1.2
88(2)
99(1, 3)
95(3)
100(0, 2)
100(0, 1)
100(0, 3)
112004-5
1.2–1.6
1.6–2.0
2.0–2.4
96(3)
98(2, 3)
96(3)
100(0, 1)
100(0, 2)
97(3, 4)
100(0, 4)
95(3)
100(0, 2)
100(0, 2)
100(0, 2)
97(3)
100(0, 2)
100(0, 3)
94(6)
100(0, 4)
100(0, 4)
100(0, 6)
100(0, 4)
100(0, 5)
94(6, 7)
98(2, 9)
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
FIG. 4 (color online). Single-muon trigger efficiencies as a function of p
T for six j j regions, measured from data using J= c T&P
(closed circles). The efficiencies determined with MC truth (triangles), J= c MC truth (open circles), and J= c MC T&P (squares),
used in the evaluation of systematic uncertainties, are also shown.
between the overlapping CSC and DT subsystems
(0:8 < j j < 1:2). For all cases the data-determined efficiencies are used to obtain the central results.
The efficiency is estimated from the product of singlemuon efficiencies. Differences between the single and
dimuon efficiencies determined from MC truth and those
measured with the T&P technique can arise from the kinematic distributions of the probes and from bin averaging.
TABLE II. Single-muon trigger efficiencies, in percent, measured from J= c data with T&P. The statistical uncertainties in
the least significant digits are given in parentheses; uncertainties
less than 0.05 are denoted by 0. For asymmetric uncertainties the
positive uncertainty is reported first.
j j
p
T
(GeV=c) 0.0–0.4 0.4–0.8 0.8–1.2 1.2–1.6 1.6–2.0 2.0–2.4
2.5–3.0
3.0–3.5
3.5–4.0
4.0–4.5
4.5–5.0
5.0–6.0
6.0–8.0
8.0–50.0
69(1)
79(1)
85(1)
90(1)
92(1)
92(1)
81(1)
91(1)
95(1)
97(1)
97(1)
97(1)
78(1)
86(1)
87(1)
85(1)
85(1)
86(1)
98(1)
98(1)
97(1)
99(0, 1)
100(0)
99(1)
93(1)
94(1)
94(1)
92(1)
96(1)
95(1)
97(1)
97(1)
92(2)
93(1)
97(1)
96(1)
99(1)
96(1)
99(1)
99(2)
This is evaluated by comparing the single-muon and dimuon efficiencies as determined using the T&P method in
J= c ! þ MC events to the efficiencies obtained in
the same events utilizing generator-level particle information. In addition, effects arising from differences in the
kinematic distributions between the and J= c decay
muons are investigated by comparing the efficiencies
determined from ! þ MC events to those from
J= c ! þ MC events. In all cases the differences
in the efficiency values are not significant, and are
used only as an estimate of the associated systematic
uncertainties.
The efficiency of the vertex 2 probability cut is determined using the high-statistics J= c data sample, to
which the selection criteria are applied. The efficiency
is extracted from a simultaneous fit to the dimuon mass
distribution of the passing and failing candidates. It is
found to be ð99:2 0:1Þ%. A possible difference between
the efficiency of the vertex 2 probability cut for the J= c
and is evaluated by applying the same technique to large
MC signal samples of each resonance. No significant
difference in the efficiencies is found. The efficiency of
the remaining selection criteria listed in Sec. III is studied
in data and MC simulation and is found to be consistent
with unity.
112004-6
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
VI. MEASUREMENT OF THE CROSS SECTIONS
The ðnSÞ differential cross section is determined from
the acceptance and efficiency-corrected signal yield,
corrected
NðnSÞ
, using the equation
d2 ðpp ! ðnSÞXÞ
BððnSÞ ! þ Þ
dpT dy
¼
corrected
NðnSÞ
ðA; "Þ
L pT y
;
(4)
where L is the integrated luminosity of the dataset and
pT and y are the bin widths.
The ð1SÞ, ð2SÞ, and ð3SÞ yields are extracted via an
extended unbinned maximum-likelihood fit to the dimuon
invariant-mass spectrum. The measured mass-lineshape
of each state is parametrized by a ‘‘crystal ball’’ (CB)
function [25]; this is a Gaussian resolution function with
the low side tail replaced with a power law describing FSR.
The resolution, given by the Gaussian standard deviation,
is a free parameter in the fit but is constrained to scale with
the ratios of the resonance masses. The FSR tail is fixed to
the MC shape. Since the three resonances overlap in the
measured dimuon mass, we fit the three ðnSÞ states
simultaneously. Therefore, the probability distribution
function (PDF) describing the signal consists of three CB
FIG. 5 (color online). Fit to the dimuon invariant-mass distribution in the specified pT regions for jyj < 2, before accounting for
acceptance and efficiency. The solid line shows the result of the fit described in the text, with the dashed line representing the
background component.
112004-7
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
functions. The mass of the ð1SÞ is a free parameter in the
fit, to accommodate a possible bias in the momentum scale
calibration. The number of free parameters is reduced by
fixing the ð2SÞ and ð3SÞ mass differences, relative to the
ð1SÞ, to their world average values [26]; an additional
mass-scale parameter multiplying the mass differences is
found to be consistent with unity. A second-order polynomial is chosen to describe the background in the
8–14 GeV=c2 mass-fit range.
The fit to the dimuon invariant-mass spectrum, before
accounting for acceptance and efficiencies, is shown
in Fig. 1 for the transverse-momentum interval
TABLE III. The uncorrected signal yield, fit quality (normalized 2 , obtained by comparing the fit PDF and the binned
data; the number of degrees of freedom is 112), and average
weight hwi in pT intervals for jyj < 2. The mean of the pT
distribution in each interval is also given.
pT
range
(GeV=c)
mean
fit
2
signal
yield
ð1SÞ
0–1
1–2
2–3
3–4
4–5
5–6
6–7
7–8
8–9
9–10
10–12
12–14
14–17
17–20
20–30
sum
combined fit
0.7
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
10.9
12.9
15.4
18.3
23.3
1.1
1.7
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
0.8
0.8
427 34
1153 54
1154 53
806 46
769 43
716 40
578 37
477 33
344 26
286 24
449 27
246 19
208 18
105 13
109 13
7825 133
7807 133
0.44
0.41
0.36
0.30
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.30
0.34
0.37
0.41
0.45
0.50
0.54
0.60
ð2SÞ
0–2
2–4
4–6
6–9
9–12
12–16
16–20
20–30
sum
combined fit
1.3
2.9
4.9
7.3
10.3
13.6
17.7
22.5
1.7
1.3
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.0
0.8
368 41
591 50
416 40
424 38
257 25
121 16
63 11
39 9
2279 91
2270 91
0.47
0.40
0.32
0.33
0.41
0.46
0.55
0.60
ð3SÞ
0–3
3–6
6–9
9–14
14–20
20–30
sum
combined fit
1.8
4.3
7.3
11.0
16.3
23.4
1.5
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
0.8
397 51
326 47
264 36
207 25
83 14
49 10
1324 84
1318 84
0.47
0.37
0.35
0.43
0.52
0.61
pT < 30 GeV=c, and for the 15 pT intervals used for the
ð1SÞ differential cross-section measurement in Fig. 5.
The observed ðnSÞ signal yields are reported in Table III.
The width of the pT intervals chosen for each resonance
reflects the corresponding available signal statistics. In all
cases the quoted uncertainty is statistical. As shown in
Table III, for each resonance the sum of the yields in
each pT interval is consistent with the yield determined
from a fit to the entire pT range. Given the significant and
pT dependencies of the efficiencies and acceptances of the
muons from ðnSÞ decays, we correct for them on a
candidate-by-candidate basis before performing the mass
corrected
fit to obtain NðnSÞ
in Eq. (4). Specifically: an candi
date reconstructed with pT and y from muons with pT 1;2
and 1;2 is corrected with a weight
hwi1
FIG. 6 (color online). (Top) Fit to the dimuon invariant-mass
distribution in the range 2 < pT < 5 GeV=c for jyj < 1. (bottom) Fit to the ð1SÞ-acceptance and efficiency weighted dimuon distribution in the range 2 < pT < 5 GeV=c for jyj < 1.
112004-8
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
w wacc wtrack wid wtrig wmisc ;
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
(5)
where the factors are: (i) acceptance, wacc ¼
1
1
1=A ðpT ; yÞ; (ii) tracking, wtrack ¼ 1=½"track ðp
T ; Þ 2
2
"track ðpT ; Þ;
(iii)
identification,
wid ¼
2
1
1
2
1=½"id ðp
T ; Þ "id ðpT ; Þ; (iv) trigger, wtrig ¼
2
1
1
2
1=½"trig ðp
T ; Þ "trig ðpT ; Þ; and (v) additional selection criteria, wmisc , including the efficiency of the vertex
selection criteria. The acceptance depends on the resonance mass; the ð3SÞ gives rise to higher-momenta
muons which results in a roughly 10% larger acceptance
for the ð3SÞ than for the ð1SÞ. Consequently, the
corrected yield for each of the ðnSÞ resonances is obtained from a fit in which the corresponding ðnSÞ acceptance is employed. Figure 6 shows the fit to an example
mass distribution before (top plot) and after (bottom plot)
event weighting. As can be seen, the weighting procedure
scales the mass distribution without introducing large distortions to the lineshape of either the signal or background
distributions.
We determine the ðnSÞ differential cross section
separately for each polarization scenario. The results are
summarized in Table IV. We also divide the data into two
ranges of rapidity, jyj < 1 and 1 < jyj < 2, and repeat the
TABLE IV. The product of the ðnSÞ production cross sections, , and the dimuon branching fraction, B, measured in pT bins for
jyj < 2, with the assumption of unpolarized production. The statistical
uncertainty (stat.), the sum of the systematic uncertainties in
P
quadrature ðsyst: Þ, and the total uncertainty (; including stat., syst: , and luminosity terms) are quoted as relative uncertainties in
percent. Values in parentheses denote the negative part of the asymmetric uncertainty. The fractional change in percent of the cross
section is shown for four polarization scenarios: fully-longitudinal (L) and fully-transverse (T) in the helicity (HX) and Collins-Soper
(CS) frames.
P
B (nb)
stat. (%)
(%)
HX-T (%)
HX-L (%)
CS-T (%)
CS-L (%)
pT (GeV=c)
syst: (%)
ð1SÞ
jyj < 2
0–30
0–1
1–2
2–3
3–4
4–5
5–6
6–7
7–8
8–9
9–10
10–12
12–14
14–17
17–20
20–30
7.37
0.30
0.90
1.04
0.88
0.90
0.82
0.64
0.51
0.33
0.25
0.36
0.18
0.14
0.06
0.06
0–30
0–2
2–4
4–6
6–9
9–12
12–16
16–20
20–30
1.90
0.25
0.48
0.41
0.41
0.21
0.09
0.04
0.02
0–30
0–3
3–6
6–9
9–14
14–20
20–30
1.02
0.26
0.29
0.24
0.16
0.05
0.03
1.8
8
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
6
8
9
12
12
ð2SÞ
4.2
12
8
10
9
10
13
18
23
ð3SÞ
6.7
14
14
14
12
17
20
8(6)
10(7)
9(6)
8(6)
9(7)
8(6)
8(6)
8(5)
8(6)
8(6)
9(6)
8(5)
9(5)
10(6)
10(6)
10(6)
14(13)
17(15)
15(14)
14(13)
15(14)
15(14)
15(14)
15(14)
15(14)
16(14)
16(15)
15(14)
16(14)
17(15)
19(17)
19(17)
þ16
þ16
þ16
þ15
þ18
þ18
þ17
þ17
þ16
þ16
þ15
þ15
þ15
þ14
þ13
þ12
22
22
20
20
23
23
23
22
22
22
21
21
20
19
18
17
9(6)
11(9)
12(10)
10(8)
10(7)
9(6)
10(7)
11(8)
20(18)
15(13)
20(19)
18(17)
18(17)
17(16)
17(16)
20(19)
24(23)
32(32)
þ14
þ14
þ12
þ16
þ15
þ14
þ14
þ12
þ12
19
19
17
22
21
20
19
18
17
11(8)
10(8)
18(17)
11(8)
10(8)
11(8)
12(9)
17(15)
21(19)
26(25)
21(19)
19(18)
23(22)
26(25)
þ14
þ13
þ13
þ15
þ15
þ13
þ11
19
18
18
20
20
18
16
112004-9
jyj < 2
jyj < 2
þ13
þ17
þ19
þ19
þ18
þ16
þ13
þ11
þ7
þ4
þ2
1
3
4
4
4
16
23
24
24
23
21
19
16
10
5
1
þ3
þ7
þ9
þ10
þ10
þ12
þ17
þ18
þ15
þ9
þ1
2
4
5
15
22
23
20
13
0
þ6
þ9
þ11
þ10
þ16
þ16
þ10
1
4
4
13
22
21
13
þ2
þ9
þ9
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
TABLE V. The product of the ðnSÞ production cross sections, , and the dimuon branching fraction, B, measured in pT bins for
jyj < 1 and 1 < jyj < 2, with the assumption of unpolarized production. The statistical
uncertainty (stat.), the sum of the systematic
P
uncertainties in quadrature ðsyst: Þ, and the total uncertainty (; including stat., syst: , and luminosity terms) are quoted as relative
uncertainties in percent. Values in parentheses denote the negative part of the asymmetric uncertainty. The fractional change in percent
of the cross section is shown for four polarization scenarios: fully-longitudinal (L) and fully-transverse (T) in the helicity (HX) and
Collins-Soper (CS) frames.
P
B (nb)
stat. (%)
(%)
HX-T (%)
HX-L (%)
CS-T (%)
CS-L (%)
pT (GeV=c)
syst: (%)
ð1SÞ
jyj < 1
0–30
0–2
2–5
5–8
8–11
11–15
15–30
4.03
0.70
1.54
1.02
0.44
0.23
0.11
0–30
0–3
3–7
7–11
11–15
15–30
1.03
0.29
0.41
0.22
0.06
0.04
0–30
0–7
7–12
12–30
0.59
0.38
0.15
0.07
0–30
0–2
2–5
5–8
8–11
11–15
15–30
3.55
0.55
1.39
0.97
0.37
0.18
0.10
0–30
0–3
3–7
7–11
11–15
15–30
0.93
0.21
0.44
0.19
0.06
0.03
0–30
0–7
7–12
12–30
0.40
0.24
0.10
0.06
1.3
5
4
5
6
7
9
ð2SÞ
2.9
10
10
11
16
17
ð3SÞ
4.8
11
15
14
ð1SÞ
1.2
7
4
5
7
8
17(15)
ð2SÞ
3.0
15
9
12
17
21
ð3SÞ
4.9
18
22
17
8(6)
9(7)
10(9)
7(6)
7(5)
8(5)
8(6)
14(12)
15(14)
15(15)
14(13)
15(14)
15(14)
16(15)
þ16
þ14
þ14
þ18
þ18
þ18
þ15
22
19
20
23
23
23
20
9(6)
17(16)
16(15)
9(7)
9(6)
9(7)
15(13)
22(21)
21(21)
18(17)
21(20)
22(21)
þ14
þ10
þ13
þ17
þ17
þ14
19
14
18
22
22
20
11(8)
25(24)
10(8)
10(8)
16(15)
30(29)
21(20)
20(20)
þ14
þ11
þ16
þ15
8(6)
11(9)
9(7)
9(5)
10(6)
10(6)
11(6)
14(12)
17(16)
15(14)
15(13)
16(14)
17(15)
18(16)
þ16
þ18
þ20
þ16
þ13
þ11
þ10
9(6)
24(23)
12(8)
11(8)
11(7)
13(9)
15(13)
30(29)
18(17)
20(18)
23(21)
27(26)
þ14
þ17
þ17
þ13
þ11
þ10
11(8)
29(27)
13(10)
11(8)
16(15)
36(35)
28(27)
23(22)
þ14
þ16
þ13
þ10
fits to obtain the ðnSÞ differential cross sections
reported in Table V. The integrated cross section for each
resonance is obtained from the corresponding sum of the
differential cross sections. The results for the ð1SÞ
pT -integrated, rapidity-differential cross section are shown
in Table VI.
jyj < 1
þ13
þ18
þ18
þ8
1
4
5
16
24
23
12
þ2
þ10
þ12
þ12
þ17
þ14
þ1
4
5
15
22
19
2
þ8
þ11
jyj < 1
19
þ10
16
þ14
22
þ1
21
4
1 < jyj < 2
22
þ13
24
þ18
25
þ18
22
þ14
19
þ6
17
0
16
3
1 < jyj < 2
19
þ12
23
þ17
22
þ17
18
þ9
17
þ1
16
3
1 < jyj < 2
19
þ10
22
þ17
18
þ10
15
2
13
19
1
þ10
16
23
23
18
8
þ1
þ6
15
23
22
12
0
þ7
13
22
13
þ5
VII. SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES
Systematic uncertainties are described in this section,
together with the methods used in their determination.
We give a representative value for each uncertainty in
parentheses.
112004-10
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
TABLE VI. The product of the ð1SÞ production cross section, , and the dimuon branching fraction, B, measured in rapidity bins
and integrated over the pT range p
T < 30 GeV=c, with the assumption of unpolarized production. The statistical
P uncertainty (stat.),
the sum of the systematic uncertainties in quadrature ðsyst: Þ, and the total uncertainty (; including stat., syst: , and luminosity
terms) are quoted as relative uncertainties in percent. Values in parentheses denote the negative part of the asymmetric uncertainty. The
fractional change in percent of the cross section is shown for four polarization scenarios: fully-longitudinal (L) and fully-transverse (T)
in the helicity (HX) and Collins-Soper (CS) frames.
P
(%)
HX-T (%)
HX-L (%)
CS-T (%)
CS-L (%)
jyj
B (nb)
stat. (%)
syst: (%)
ð1SÞ
pT < 30 GeV=c
0.0–2.0
0.0–0.4
0.4–0.8
0.8–1.2
1.2–1.6
1.6–2.0
7.61
1.62
1.52
1.77
1.47
1.23
1.8
3
4
4
4
4
8(6)
8(6)
9(8)
9(7)
9(7)
11(7)
þ16
þ15
þ17
þ16
þ17
þ18
14(13)
14(13)
15(14)
14(13)
15(13)
16(14)
We determine the cross section using acceptance maps
corresponding to five different polarization scenarios,
expected to represent extreme cases. The values of
the cross section obtained vary by about 20%. The variations depend on pT thus affecting the shapes of the pT
spectrum.
The statistical uncertainties on the acceptance and
efficiencies—single-muon trigger and muon ID, quality
criteria, tracking and vertex quality—give rise to systematic uncertainties for the cross-section measurement. We
vary the dimuon event weights in the fit coherently by
1ðstat:Þ. The muon identification and trigger efficiencies are varied coherently when estimating the associated
systematic uncertainties (8%).
The selection criteria requiring the muons to be consistent with emanating from the same primary vertex are fully
efficient. This has been confirmed in data and simulation.
The selection of one candidate per event using the largest
vertex probability also has an efficiency consistent with
unity. We assign an uncertainty (0.2%) from the frequency
of occurrence of signal candidates in the data that are
rejected by the largest vertex probability requirement but
pass all the remaining selection criteria. The muon charge
misassignment is estimated to be less than 0.01% [27] and
contributes a negligible uncertainty.
Final-state radiation is incorporated into the simulation using the PHOTOS algorithm. To estimate the systematic uncertainty associated with this procedure, the
acceptance is calculated without FSR and 20% of the
difference is taken as the uncertainty based on a study in
Ref. [14] (0.8%).
The definition of acceptance used in this analysis
requires that the muons from the decay produce
reconstructible tracks. The kinematic selection is
applied to the reconstructed pT and values of these
tracks. Uncertainties on the measurement of track
parameters also affect the acceptance as a systematic uncertainty. The dominant uncertainty is associated with the
22
19
22
22
23
23
þ13
þ13
þ11
þ9
þ12
þ20
16
17
15
12
16
24
measurement of the track transverse momentum. The acceptance is sensitive to biases in track momentum and to
differences in resolution between the simulated and measured distributions. The magnitude of these effects is
quantified by comparing measurements of resonance
mass and width between simulation and data [19]. To
determine the effect on the acceptance, we introduce a
track pT bias of 0.2%, chosen to be 4 times the maximum
momentum scale residual bias after calibration (0.3%). We
also vary the transverse-momentum resolution by 10%,
corresponding to the uncertainty in the resolution measurement using J= c , and recalculate the acceptance
map (0.1%).
Imperfect knowledge
pffiffiffi of the production pT spectrum of
the resonances at s ¼ 7 TeV contributes a systematic
uncertainty. The MC sample used for the acceptance
calculation, Eq. (2), was generated flat in pT , whereas the
pT spectrum in the data peaks at a few GeV=c, and behaves
as a power law above 5 GeV=c. To study the effect of this
difference, we have reweighted the sample in pT to more
closely describe the expected distribution in data based on
a fit to the spectrum obtained from PYTHIA (1%).
The distribution of the z position of the pp interaction
point influences the acceptance. We have produced MC
samples of ðnSÞ at different positions along the beam
line, between 10 and þ10 cm with respect to the center
of the nominal collision region (1%).
High-statistics MC simulations are performed to compare T&P single-muon and dimuon efficiencies to the
actual MC values for both the and J= c , see Figs. 3
and 4. The differences and their associated uncertainties
are taken as a source of systematic uncertainty. The contributions are: possible bias in the T&P technique (0.1%),
differences in the J= c and kinematics (1%), and the
possible misestimation of the double-muon efficiency as
the product of the single-muon efficiencies (1.6%).
Monte Carlo trials of the fitter demonstrate that it is
consistent with providing an unbiased estimate of the yield
112004-11
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
of each resonance, its mass, and the mass resolution (1%).
A systematic variation may arise from differences between
the dimuon invariant-mass distribution in the data and in
the PDFs chosen for the signal and background components in the fit. We consider the following variations in the
signal PDF. As the CB parameters which describe the
radiative tail of each resonance are fixed from MC simulation in the nominal fit to the data, we vary the CB
parameters by 3 times their uncertainties (3%). We also
remove the resonance mass difference constraint in the pT
integrated fit (0.6%). We vary the background PDF by
replacing the polynomial by a linear function, while restricting the fit to the mass range 8–12 GeV=c2 (3% when
fitting the full pT and y ranges, varying with differential
interval).
The determination of the integrated luminosity normalization is made with an uncertainty of 11% [9]. The relative
systematic uncertainties from each source are summarized
TABLE VII. Relative values of the systematic uncertainties on the ðnSÞ production cross sections times the dimuon branching
fraction, in pT intervals for jyj < 2, assuming unpolarized production, in percent. The abbreviations used indicate the various
systematic uncertainty sources: the statistical uncertainty in the estimation of the acceptance (A) and the trigger and muon
identification efficiencies ("trig;id ); imperfect knowledge of the momentum scale (Sp ), the production pT spectrum (ApT ), the efficiency
of the vertex-quality criterion (Avtx ), and the modeling of FSR (AFSR ); the use of the T&P method (T&P); the bias from using the J= c
to determine single-muon efficiencies rather than the ("J= c ; ); the background PDF (BG); the signal PDF, the fitter, the tracking
efficiency, and effects arising from the efficiency binning (add). Values in parentheses denote the negative part of the asymmetric
uncertainty. The luminosity uncertainty of 11% is not included in the table.
pT (GeV=c)
A
ð1SÞ
"trig;id
jyj < 2
Sp
ApT
Avtx
0–30
0–1
1–2
2–3
3–4
4–5
5–6
6–7
7–8
8–9
9–10
10–12
12–14
14–17
17–20
20–30
0.5(0.5)
0.4(0.4)
0.4(0.4)
0.5(0.5)
0.6(0.6)
0.6(0.6)
0.6(0.6)
0.6(0.6)
0.6(0.6)
0.6(0.6)
0.5(0.5)
0.5(0.5)
0.5(0.4)
0.4(0.4)
0.4(0.4)
0.3(0.3)
ð2SÞ
0.6(0.6)
0.5(0.5)
0.7(0.7)
0.8(0.7)
0.7(0.7)
0.5(0.5)
0.4(0.5)
0.3(0.4)
0.3(0.3)
ð3SÞ
0.7(0.6)
0.5(0.5)
0.9(0.8)
0.7(0.7)
0.5(0.5)
0.4(0.4)
0.3(0.3)
7.5(4.6)
8.3(5.4)
7.8(5.2)
7.3(4.7)
7.3(4.8)
7.4(4.5)
7.4(4.3)
7.4(4.1)
7.7(4.7)
7.4(4.2)
7.8(4.3)
7.4(3.7)
7.9(4.0)
8.5(4.2)
8.9(4.4)
8.9(4.3)
0.3(0.3)
0.1(0.1)
0.2(0.2)
0.6(0.6)
0.6(0.6)
0.4(0.3)
0.2(0.3)
0.2(0.3)
0.1(0.1)
0.0(0.1)
0.1(0.0)
0.1(0.1)
0.2(0.1)
0.1(0.1)
0.1(0.1)
0.1(0.1)
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
0.7
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.7
1.0
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
8.3(4.9)
8.3(5.2)
8.3(5.4)
7.9(4.7)
8.6(4.8)
8.4(4.2)
8.8(4.6)
8.3(4.1)
9.1(4.4)
0.3(0.3)
0.2(0.2)
0.7(0.8)
0.4(0.4)
0.1(0.1)
0.1(0.1)
0.1(0.1)
0.2(0.1)
0.1(0.1)
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.4
1.0
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.3
1.1
1.2
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.8
8.6(4.7)
8.5(4.4)
9.1(5.4)
8.9(4.8)
7.5(4.1)
8.8(4.5)
8.8(4.1)
0.3(0.3)
0.4(0.5)
0.7(0.7)
0.2(0.2)
0.1(0.1)
0.2(0.1)
0.1(0.1)
0.8
0.5
0.3
1.1
1.5
1.7
1.6
0.8
0.4
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0–30
0–2
2–4
4–6
6–9
9–12
12–16
16–20
20–30
0–30
0–3
3–6
6–9
9–14
14–20
20–30
112004-12
AFSR
T&P
"J= c ;
uncertainties are in percent
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
jyj < 2
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
jyj < 2
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
BG
add.
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
3.4
1.8
1.5
3.7
2.3
0.5
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.9
0.2
0.3
2.2
0.1
0.1
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.6
3.5
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
1.0
0.6
1.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.3
1.9
6.8
8.0
5.2
1.7
0.9
2.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.6
4.0
6.5
17.3
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.5
1.0
0.6
1.7
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
3.4
1.7
14.1
2.2
0.4
3.4
0.3
5.4
5.7
7.3
5.6
6.1
5.9
8.3
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
TABLE VIII. Relative values of the systematic uncertainties on the ðnSÞ production cross sections times the dimuon branching
fraction, in pT intervals for jyj < 1 and 1 < jyj < 2, assuming unpolarized production, in percent. The abbreviations used indicate the
various systematic uncertainty sources: the statistical uncertainty in the estimation of the acceptance (A) and the trigger and muon
identification efficiencies ("trig;id ); imperfect knowledge of the momentum scale (Sp ), the production pT spectrum (ApT ), the efficiency
of the vertex-quality criterion (Avtx ), and the modeling of FSR (AFSR ); the use of the T&P method (T&P); the bias from using the J= c
to determine single-muon efficiencies rather than the ("J= c ; ); the background PDF (BG); the signal PDF, the fitter, the tracking
efficiency, and effects arising from the efficiency binning (add). Values in parentheses denote the negative part of the asymmetric
uncertainty. The luminosity uncertainty of 11% is not included in the table.
pT (GeV=c)
A
ð1SÞ
"trig;id
jyj < 1
Sp
ApT
Avtx
AFSR
T&P
"J= c ;
uncertainties are in percent
BG
add.
0–30
0–2
2–5
5–8
8–11
11–15
15–30
0.5(0.5)
0.4(0.4)
0.6(0.6)
0.7(0.7)
0.5(0.5)
0.5(0.4)
0.3(0.4)
ð2SÞ
0.6(0.6)
0.6(0.5)
0.8(0.8)
0.6(0.6)
0.5(0.5)
0.3(0.4)
ð3SÞ
0.7(0.6)
0.8(0.8)
0.6(0.6)
0.4(0.4)
ð1SÞ
0.5(0.5)
0.4(0.4)
0.5(0.5)
0.6(0.6)
0.6(0.5)
0.4(0.5)
0.4(0.5)
ð2SÞ
0.6(0.6)
0.5(0.5)
0.7(0.7)
0.6(0.6)
0.5(0.5)
0.4(0.4)
ð3SÞ
0.7(0.6)
0.7(0.6)
0.7(0.6)
0.4(0.4)
7.5(4.6)
7.7(5.6)
7.1(5.2)
6.5(4.4)
6.4(3.9)
6.6(3.8)
7.1(4.2)
0.3(0.3)
0.3(0.3)
0.7(0.7)
0.3(0.3)
0.0(0.0)
0.1(0.1)
0.1(0.2)
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.8
1.3
1.5
1.6
0.7
0.5
0.1
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.6
8.3(4.9)
8.2(6.0)
7.7(5.2)
7.7(4.9)
7.3(4.4)
7.4(4.3)
0.3(0.3)
0.6(0.6)
0.6(0.7)
0.1(0.0)
0.1(0.1)
0.1(0.2)
0.7
0.5
0.4
1.3
1.6
1.7
0.8
0.1
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.5
8.6(4.7)
8.8(5.9)
7.6(5.0)
7.1(4.0)
0.3(0.3)
0.6(0.7)
0.0(0.0)
0.2(0.1)
0.8
0.5
1.4
1.6
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.7
7.5(4.6)
8.2(4.6)
7.7(4.0)
8.4(4.2)
8.9(4.4)
9.1(4.2)
10.6(4.3)
0.3(0.3)
0.0(0.1)
0.3(0.3)
0.1(0.2)
0.0(0.1)
0.1(0.2)
0.2(0.3)
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.7
1.3
1.6
1.7
0.7
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.1
8.3(4.9)
7.8(3.8)
9.4(4.9)
9.6(4.8)
9.7(4.8)
9.5(3.8)
0.3(0.3)
0.2(0.2)
0.3(0.3)
0.0(0.0)
0.1(0.2)
0.2(0.2)
0.7
0.3
0.4
1.2
1.6
1.7
0.8
1.2
1.3
1.1
0.9
1.3
8.6(4.7)
8.6(2.9)
9.3(4.1)
9.4(4.3)
0.3(0.3)
0.4(0.4)
0.0(0.0)
0.1(0.2)
0.8
0.4
1.3
1.7
0.8
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
jyj < 1
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.5
jyj < 1
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.5
1 < jyj < 2
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
1 < jyj < 2
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
1 < jyj < 2
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
0–30
0–3
3–7
7–11
11–15
15–30
0–30
0–7
7–12
12–30
0–30
0–2
2–5
5–8
8–11
11–15
15–30
0–30
0–3
3–7
7–11
11–15
15–30
0–30
0–7
7–12
12–30
in Table VII for the full rapidity range, for two rapidity
ranges in Table VIII, and for five rapidity ranges in
Table IX. The largest sources of systematic uncertainty
arise from the statistical precision of the efficiency
measurements from data and from the luminosity normalization, with the latter dominating.
0.0
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.6
6.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.0
1.4
1.5
1.0
0.7
0.4
1.9
13.9
13.1
1.7
1.6
1.9
3.2
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.6
4.2
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.3
1.0
1.7
0.9
0.5
3.4
22.9
2.2
0.2
5.4
5.4
5.7
6.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.5
7.3
4.3
0.4
1.7
0.1
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.7
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.9
21.9
5.4
4.4
1.5
3.4
3.3
3.8
3.4
3.5
4.6
7.2
0.1
0.5
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.3
0.6
0.5
3.4
26.5
6.2
1.5
5.5
6.5
6.7
5.9
VIII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The analysispof
ffiffiffi the collision data acquired by the CMS
experiment at s ¼ 7 TeV, corresponding to an integrated
luminosity of 3:1 0:3 pb1 , yields a measurement of the
ðnSÞ integrated production cross sections for the range
jyj < 2:
112004-13
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
TABLE IX. Relative values of the systematic uncertainties on the ð1SÞ production cross section times the dimuon branching
fraction, in rapidity intervals for pT < 30 GeV=c, assuming unpolarized production, in percent. The abbreviations used indicate the
various systematic uncertainty sources: the statistical uncertainty in the estimation of the acceptance (A) and the trigger and muon
identification efficiencies ("trig;id ); imperfect knowledge of the momentum scale (Sp ), the production pT spectrum (ApT ), the efficiency
of the vertex-quality criterion (Avtx ), and the modeling of FSR (AFSR ); the use of the T&P method (T&P); the bias from using the J= c
to determine single-muon efficiencies rather than the ("J= c ; ); the background PDF (BG); the signal PDF, the fitter, the tracking
efficiency, and effects arising from the efficiency binning (add). Values in parentheses denote the negative part of the asymmetric
uncertainty. The luminosity uncertainty of 11% is not included in the table.
jyj
0.0–2.0
0.0–0.4
0.4–0.8
0.8–1.2
1.2–1.6
1.6–2.0
A
ð1SÞ
"trig;id
pT < 30 GeV=c
Sp
ApT
Avtx
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
7.5(4.6)
6.8(4.9)
6.8(4.7)
7.5(4.9)
7.7(4.0)
9.3(4.0)
0.3(0.3)
0.4(0.4)
0.4(0.4)
0.3(0.3)
0.2(0.2)
0.0(0.1)
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.3
1.0
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
d2σ/dp dy × Β(µµ) (nb/(GeV/c))
Υ (1S)
Υ (2S)
Υ (3S)
10-1
0.9
1.5
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.6
add.
0.5
0.1
5.4
2.9
4.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
CMS, s = 7 TeV
L = 3 pb-1
10-1
|y|<1
1<|y|<2
Υ (1S)
10-2
T
10-2
10-3
Lumi. uncertainty (11%) not shown
5
10
15
20
25
10-3
Lumi. uncertainty (11%) not shown
30
5
pΥ (GeV/c)
10
15
20
25
30
pΥ (GeV/c)
T
T
1
d2σ/dp dy × Β(µµ) (nb/(GeV/c))
1
CMS, s = 7 TeV
L = 3 pb-1
10-1
|y|<1
1<|y|<2
Υ (2S)
CMS, s = 7 TeV
L = 3 pb-1
10-1
|y|<1
1<|y|<2
Υ (3S)
10-2
T
10-2
T
d2σ/dp dy × Β(µµ) (nb/(GeV/c))
0.0
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.9
BG
1
CMS, s = 7 TeV
L = 3 pb-1, |y|<2
T
d2σ/dp dy × Β(µµ) (nb/(GeV/c))
1
AFSR
T&P
"J= c ;
uncertainties are in percent
10-3
Lumi. uncertainty (11%) not shown
5
10
15
20
25
10-3
30
pΥT (GeV/c)
Lumi. uncertainty (11%) not shown
5
10
15
20
25
30
pΥT (GeV/c)
FIG. 7. ðnSÞ differential cross sections in the rapidity interval jyj < 2 (top left), and in the rapidity intervals jyj < 1 and 1 < jyj < 2
for the ð1SÞ (top right), ð2SÞ (bottom left) and ð3SÞ (bottom right). The uncertainties on the points represent the sum of the
statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature, excluding the uncertainty on the integrated luminosity (11%).
112004-14
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
0.8
dσ/dy × Β(µµ) (nb)
4
CMS, s = 7 TeV
L = 3 pb-1
0.7
Υ (1S)
0.6
data
3.5
σ × Β (µµ) ratio
4.5
PYTHIA (normalized)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0
Υ (3S) / Υ (1S)
Υ (2S) / Υ (1S)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Lumi. uncertainty (11%) not shown
0.5
CMS, s = 7 TeV
L = 3 pb-1, |y|<2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0
5
10
yΥ
15
20
25
30
pΥT (GeV/c)
PYTHIA (normalized)
|yΥ | < 2
10-1
10-2
10-3
s = 7 TeV, L = 3 pb-1
0
5
PYTHIA (normalized)
|yΥ | < 2
10-1
10-2
Υ (2S)
T
Υ (1S)
CMS data
10
15
20
25
30
10-3
s = 7 TeV, L = 3 pb-1
0
5
1
CMS data
PYTHIA (normalized)
|yΥ | < 2
10-1
10-2
Υ (3S)
T
CMS data
1
d2σ/dp dy × Β(µµ) (nb/(GeV/c))
d2σ/dp dy × Β(µµ) (nb/(GeV/c))
1
T
d2σ/dp dy × Β(µµ) (nb/(GeV/c))
FIG. 8 (color online). (Left) Differential ð1SÞ cross section as a function of rapidity in the transverse-momentum range pT <
30 GeV=c (data points) and normalized PYTHIA prediction (line). The uncertainties on the points represent the sum of the statistical
and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature, excluding the uncertainty on the integrated luminosity (11%). (Right) Cross section
ratios for ðnSÞ states as a function of pT in the rapidity range jyj < 2.
10
pY (GeV/c)
15
20
pY (GeV/c)
T
T
25
30
10-3
s = 7 TeV, L = 3 pb-1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
pY (GeV/c)
T
FIG. 9. Differential cross sections of the ðnSÞ as a function of pT in the rapidity range jyj < 2, and comparison to the PYTHIA
predictions normalized to the measured pT -integrated cross sections; ð1SÞ (left), ð2SÞ (middle), and ð3SÞ (right). The theory
prediction is shown in the form of a continuous spectrum (curve) and integrated in the same pT bins as employed in the measurement
(horizontal lines). The PYTHIA curve is used to calculate the abscissa of the data points [28]. The uncertainties on the points represent the
sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature, excluding the uncertainty on the integrated luminosity (11%).
ðpp ! ð1SÞXÞ Bðð1SÞ ! þ Þ
TABLE X. The ratios of ðnSÞ cross sections for different pT ranges in the unpolarized scenario. The first uncertainty is
statistical and the second is systematic. The ratios are independent of the luminosity normalization and its uncertainty.
pT (GeV=c)
0–30
0–3
3–6
6–9
9–14
14–20
20–30
ð3SÞ=ð1SÞ
ð2SÞ=ð1SÞ
0:14 0:01 0:02
0:11 0:02 0:02
0:11 0:02 0:03
0:17 0:03 0:03
0:20 0:03 0:03
0:26 0:07 0:04
0:44 0:16 0:08
0:26 0:02 0:04
0:22 0:03 0:04
0:25 0:03 0:05
0:28 0:04 0:04
0:33 0:04 0:05
0:35 0:08 0:05
0:36 0:14 0:06
¼ 7:37 0:13ðstat:Þðsyst:Þ 0:81ðlumi:Þ nb;
ðpp ! ð2SÞXÞ Bðð2SÞ ! þ Þ
¼ 1:90 0:08ðstat:Þðsyst:Þ 0:21ðlumi:Þ nb;
ðpp ! ð3SÞXÞ Bðð3SÞ ! þ Þ
¼ 1:02 0:07ðstat:Þðsyst:Þ 0:11ðlumi:Þ nb:
0:08 þ 0:11 0:12 þ 0:18 0:42 þ 0:61
The ð1SÞ and ð2SÞ measurements include feed-down
from higher-mass states, such as the b family and the
ð3SÞ. These measurements assume unpolarized ðnSÞ
112004-15
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
FIG.
P 10 (color online). Comparison of the CMS differential ðnSÞ cross sections as a function of pT , normalized by TOT ¼
ðd=dpT ÞpT , to previous measurements; ð1SÞ (left), ð2SÞ (middle), and ð3SÞ (right).
production. Assumptions of fully-transverse or fullylongitudinal polarizations change the measured cross section values by about 20%. The differential ðnSÞ cross
sections as a function of pT for the rapidity intervals
jyj < 1, 1 < jyj < 2, and jyj < 2 are shown in Fig. 7. The
pT dependence of the cross section in the two exclusive
rapidity intervals is the same within the uncertainties. The
ð1SÞ differential cross sections as a function of rapidity
and integrated in pT are shown in the left plot of Fig. 8. The
cross section shows a slight decline towards jyj ¼ 2, consistent with the expectation from PYTHIA. The ratios of
ðnSÞ differential cross sections as a function of pT are
reported in Table X and shown in the right plot of Fig. 8. The
uncertainty associated with the luminosity determination
cancels in the computation of the ratios. Both ratios increase
with pT . In Fig. 9 the differential cross sections for the
ð1SÞ, ð2SÞ, and ð3SÞ are compared to PYTHIA. The
normalized pT -spectrum prediction from PYTHIA is consistent with the measurements, while the integrated cross
section is overestimated by about a factor of 2. We have
not included parameter uncertainties in the PYTHIA calculation. We do not compare our measurements
pffiffiffi to other
models as no published predictions exist at s ¼ 7 TeV
for production.
The ðnSÞ integrated
cross sections are expected
pffiffiffi
to increase with s. As the gluon-gluon amplitude is
expected to dominate production of resonances at both
TABLE XI. ð1SÞ cross section measurements at several
expericenter-of-mass collision energies from the Tevatron (pp)
ments CDF and D0 and from CMS (pp). The first uncertainty is
statistical, the second is systematic, and the third is associated
with the luminosity determination.
Exp.
pffiffiffi
s (TeV)
CDF
D0
1.8
CMS
1.96
7.0
ðÞ
1
ðpp ! ð1SÞXÞ y
Bð ! Þ
rapidity range
0:680 0:015 0:018 0:026 nb [4]
0:628 0:016 0:065 0:038 nb [5]
jyj < 0:4
jyj < 0:6
2:02 0:03þ0:16
0:12 0:22 nb (this work)
jyj < 1:0
the LHC and the Tevatron, we compare, in Table XI, our
measurement of the ð1SÞ integrated cross section in the
central rapidity region jyj < 1 to previous measurements
[4,5] performed in pp collisions. Previous measurements
were performed in the range pT < 20 GeV=c, and
jyj < 0:4 for CDF and jyj < 1:8 for DØ. Under the assumption that the cross section is uniform in rapidity for
the measurement range
pffiffiffi of each experiment, the cross
section we measure at s ¼ 7 TeV is about 3 times larger
than the cross section measured at the Tevatron. Although
our measurement extends to higher pT than the Tevatron
measurements, the fraction of the cross section satisfying
pT > 20 GeV=c is less than 1% and so can be neglected
for this comparison. We compare the normalized differential cross sections in pT at the Tevatron to our measurements in Fig. 10.
IX. SUMMARY
The study of the ðnSÞ resonances provides important
information on the process of hadroproduction of heavy
quarks. In this paper we have presented the first measurement of the ðnSÞ differential production
cross section
pffiffiffi
for proton-proton collisions at s ¼ 7 TeV. Integrated
over the range pT < 30 GeV=c and jyj < 2, we find the
product of the ð1SÞ production cross section and dimuon
branching fraction to be ðpp ! ð1SÞXÞ Bðð1SÞ !
þ Þ ¼ 7:37 0:13þ0:61
0:42 0:81 nb, where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic, and the
third is associated with the estimation of the integrated
luminosity of the data sample. Under the assumption that
the cross section is uniform in rapidity for the measurement
range
pffiffiffi of each experiment, the cross section we measure at
s ¼ 7 TeV is about 3 times larger than the cross section
measured at the Tevatron. The ð2SÞ and ð3SÞ integrated
cross sections and the ð1SÞ, ð2SÞ, and ð3SÞ differential
cross sections in transverse-momentum in two regions of
rapidity have also been determined. The differential cross
112004-16
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
We wish to congratulate our colleagues in the CERN
accelerator departments for the excellent performance of
the LHC machine. We thank the technical and administrative staff at CERN and other CMS institutes. This
work was supported by the Austrian Federal Ministry of
Science and Research; the Belgium Fonds de la
Recherche
Scientifique,
and
Fonds
voor
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek; the Brazilian Funding
Agencies (CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP); the
Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science; CERN; the
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Science and
Technology, and National Natural Science Foundation of
China; the Colombian Funding Agency (COLCIENCIAS);
the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport; the
Research Promotion Foundation, Cyprus; the Estonian
Academy of Sciences and NICPB; the Academy of
Finland, Finnish Ministry of Education, and Helsinki
Institute of Physics; the Institut National de Physique
Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules/CNRS, and
Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies
Alternatives/CEA, France; the Bundesministerium für
Bildung und Forschung, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher
Forschungszentren, Germany; the General Secretariat for
Research and Technology, Greece; the National Scientific
Research Foundation, and National Office for Research
and Technology, Hungary; the Department of Atomic
Energy, and Department of Science and Technology,
India; the Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and
Mathematics, Iran; the Science Foundation, Ireland; the
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy; the Korean
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology and the
World Class University program of NRF, Korea; the
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; the Mexican Funding
Agencies (CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLPFAI); the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission; the State
Commission for Scientific Research, Poland; the Fundação
para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal; JINR (Armenia,
Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan); the Ministry of
Science and Technologies of the Russian Federation, and
Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy; the Ministry of
Science and Technological Development of Serbia; the
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, and Programa
Consolider-Ingenio 2010, Spain; the Swiss Funding
Agencies (ETH Board, ETH Zurich, PSI, SNF, UniZH,
Canton Zurich, and SER); the National Science Council,
Taipei; the Scientific and Technical Research Council of
Turkey, and Turkish Atomic Energy Authority; the Science
and Technology Facilities Council, UK; the US
Department of Energy, and the US National Science
Foundation. Individuals have received support from the
Marie-Curie programme and the European Research
Council (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the
A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation; the Associazione per lo Sviluppo Scientifico
e Tecnologico del Piemonte (Italy); the Belgian Federal
Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la
Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIABelgium); and the Agentschap voor Innovatie door
Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium).
[1] N. Brambilla et al., Report No. CERN-2005-005, 2004,
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/872545.
[2] G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D
51, 1125 (1995).
[3] P. Artoisenet et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 152001 (2008).
[4] D. E. Acosta et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 161802
(2002).
[5] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 232001
(2005); 100, 049902(E) (2008).
[6] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, J. High Energy
Phys. 05 (2006) 026.
[7] CMS Collaboration, JINST 5, T03009 (2010).
[8] CMS Collaboration, JINST 3, S08004 (2008).
[9] CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-EWK-10-004, 2010,
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1279145.
[10] CMS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 1165
(2010).
[11] M. Krämer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47, 141 (2001).
[12] M. Bargiotti and V. Vagnoni, Report No. LHCb-2007-042,
2007, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1042611.
[13] E. Barberio, B. van Eijk, and Z. Wa̧s, Comput. Phys.
Commun. 66, 115 (1991).
[14] E. Barberio and Z. Was, Comput. Phys. Commun. 79, 291
(1994).
section measurements have been compared to previous
measurements and PYTHIA. Finally, the cross section ratios
of the three ðnSÞ have been measured.
The dominant sources of systematic uncertainty on the
cross-section measurement arise from the tag-and-probe
determination of the efficiencies and from the integrated
luminosity normalization. Both will be reduced with additional data. Assuming fully-transverse or fully-longitudinal
production polarization instead of unpolarized ðnSÞ production changes the cross-section measurements by about
20%. With a larger accumulated data sample, it will become possible to perform a simultaneous measurement of
the polarization and the cross section. This work provides
new experimental results which will serve as input to ongoing theoretical investigations of the correct description
of bottomonium production.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
112004-17
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
[15] S. Agostinelli et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res.,
Sect. A 506, 250 (2003).
[16] CMS Collaboration, Report No. CMS-PAS-MUO-10-002,
2010, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1279140.
[17] CMS Collaboration, JINST 5, T03021 (2010).
[18] CMS Collaboration, Report No. CMS-PAS-TRK-10-003,
2010, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1279138.
[19] CMS Collaboration, Report No. CMS-PAS-TRK-10-004,
2010, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1279137.
[20] D. J. Lange, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A
462, 152 (2001).
[21] P. Faccioli et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 69, 657 (2010).
[22] J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D 16, 2219 (1977).
[23] CMS Collaboration, Report No. CMS-PAS-TRK-10-002,
2010, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1279139 .
[24] CMS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1575 (2011).
[25] M. J. Oreglia, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University 1980]
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacreports/slac-r236.html.
[26] K. Nakamura et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 37,
075021 (2010).
[27] CMS Collaboration, JINST 5, T03022 (2010).
[28] G. D. Lafferty and T. R. Wyatt, Nucl. Instrum. Methods
Phys. Res., Sect. A 355, 541 (1995).
V. Khachatryan,1 A. M. Sirunyan,1 A. Tumasyan,1 W. Adam,2 T. Bergauer,2 M. Dragicevic,2 J. Erö,2 C. Fabjan,2
M. Friedl,2 R. Frühwirth,2 V. M. Ghete,2 J. Hammer,2,b S. Hänsel,2 C. Hartl,2 M. Hoch,2 N. Hörmann,2 J. Hrubec,2
M. Jeitler,2 G. Kasieczka,2 W. Kiesenhofer,2 M. Krammer,2 D. Liko,2 I. Mikulec,2 M. Pernicka,2 H. Rohringer,2
R. Schöfbeck,2 J. Strauss,2 A. Taurok,2 F. Teischinger,2 W. Waltenberger,2 G. Walzel,2 E. Widl,2 C.-E. Wulz,2
V. Mossolov,3 N. Shumeiko,3 J. Suarez Gonzalez,3 L. Benucci,4 L. Ceard,4 K. Cerny,4 E. A. De Wolf,4 X. Janssen,4
T. Maes,4 L. Mucibello,4 S. Ochesanu,4 B. Roland,4 R. Rougny,4 M. Selvaggi,4 H. Van Haevermaet,4
P. Van Mechelen,4 N. Van Remortel,4 V. Adler,5 S. Beauceron,5 F. Blekman,5 S. Blyweert,5 J. D’Hondt,5
O. Devroede,5 R. Gonzalez Suarez,5 A. Kalogeropoulos,5 J. Maes,5 M. Maes,5 S. Tavernier,5 W. Van Doninck,5
P. Van Mulders,5 G. P. Van Onsem,5 I. Villella,5 O. Charaf,6 B. Clerbaux,6 G. De Lentdecker,6 V. Dero,6 A. P. R. Gay,6
G. H. Hammad,6 T. Hreus,6 P. E. Marage,6 L. Thomas,6 C. Vander Velde,6 P. Vanlaer,6 J. Wickens,6 S. Costantini,7
M. Grunewald,7 B. Klein,7 A. Marinov,7 J. Mccartin,7 D. Ryckbosch,7 F. Thyssen,7 M. Tytgat,7 L. Vanelderen,7
P. Verwilligen,7 S. Walsh,7 N. Zaganidis,7 S. Basegmez,8 G. Bruno,8 J. Caudron,8 J. De Favereau De Jeneret,8
C. Delaere,8 P. Demin,8 D. Favart,8 A. Giammanco,8 G. Grégoire,8 J. Hollar,8 V. Lemaitre,8 J. Liao,8 O. Militaru,8
S. Ovyn,8 D. Pagano,8 A. Pin,8 K. Piotrzkowski,8 L. Quertenmont,8 N. Schul,8 N. Beliy,9 T. Caebergs,9 E. Daubie,9
G. A. Alves,10 D. De Jesus Damiao,10 M. E. Pol,10 M. H. G. Souza,10 W. Carvalho,11 E. M. Da Costa,11
C. De Oliveira Martins,11 S. Fonseca De Souza,11 L. Mundim,11 H. Nogima,11 V. Oguri,11 W. L. Prado Da Silva,11
A. Santoro,11 S. M. Silva Do Amaral,11 A. Sznajder,11 F. A. Dias,12 M. A. F. Dias,12 T. R. Fernandez Perez Tomei,12
E. M. Gregores,12,c F. Marinho,12 S. F. Novaes,12 Sandra S. Padula,12 N. Darmenov,13,b L. Dimitrov,13 V. Genchev,13,b
P. Iaydjiev,13,b S. Piperov,13 M. Rodozov,13 S. Stoykova,13 G. Sultanov,13 V. Tcholakov,13 R. Trayanov,13 I. Vankov,13
M. Dyulendarova,14 R. Hadjiiska,14 V. Kozhuharov,14 L. Litov,14 E. Marinova,14 M. Mateev,14 B. Pavlov,14
P. Petkov,14 J. G. Bian,15 G. M. Chen,15 H. S. Chen,15 C. H. Jiang,15 D. Liang,15 S. Liang,15 J. Wang,15 J. Wang,15
X. Wang,15 Z. Wang,15 M. Xu,15 M. Yang,15 J. Zang,15 Z. Zhang,15 Y. Ban,16 S. Guo,16 W. Li,16 Y. Mao,16
S. J. Qian,16 H. Teng,16 L. Zhang,16 B. Zhu,16 A. Cabrera,17 B. Gomez Moreno,17 A. A. Ocampo Rios,17
A. F. Osorio Oliveros,17 J. C. Sanabria,17 N. Godinovic,18 D. Lelas,18 K. Lelas,18 R. Plestina,18,d D. Polic,18
I. Puljak,18 Z. Antunovic,19 M. Dzelalija,19 V. Brigljevic,20 S. Duric,20 K. Kadija,20 S. Morovic,20 A. Attikis,21
M. Galanti,21 J. Mousa,21 C. Nicolaou,21 F. Ptochos,21 P. A. Razis,21 H. Rykaczewski,21 Y. Assran,22,e
M. A. Mahmoud,22,f A. Hektor,23 M. Kadastik,23 K. Kannike,23 M. Müntel,23 M. Raidal,23 L. Rebane,23
V. Azzolini,24 P. Eerola,24 S. Czellar,25 J. Härkönen,25 A. Heikkinen,25 V. Karimäki,25 R. Kinnunen,25 J. Klem,25
M. J. Kortelainen,25 T. Lampén,25 K. Lassila-Perini,25 S. Lehti,25 T. Lindén,25 P. Luukka,25 T. Mäenpää,25
E. Tuominen,25 J. Tuominiemi,25 E. Tuovinen,25 D. Ungaro,25 L. Wendland,25 K. Banzuzi,26 A. Korpela,26
T. Tuuva,26 D. Sillou,27 M. Besancon,28 S. Choudhury,28 M. Dejardin,28 D. Denegri,28 B. Fabbro,28 J. L. Faure,28
F. Ferri,28 S. Ganjour,28 F. X. Gentit,28 A. Givernaud,28 P. Gras,28 G. Hamel de Monchenault,28 P. Jarry,28 E. Locci,28
J. Malcles,28 M. Marionneau,28 L. Millischer,28 J. Rander,28 A. Rosowsky,28 I. Shreyber,28 M. Titov,28
P. Verrecchia,28 S. Baffioni,29 F. Beaudette,29 L. Bianchini,29 M. Bluj,29,g C. Broutin,29 P. Busson,29 C. Charlot,29
T. Dahms,29 L. Dobrzynski,29 R. Granier de Cassagnac,29 M. Haguenauer,29 P. Miné,29 C. Mironov,29 C. Ochando,29
P. Paganini,29 D. Sabes,29 R. Salerno,29 Y. Sirois,29 C. Thiebaux,29 B. Wyslouch,29,h A. Zabi,29 J.-L. Agram,30,i
J. Andrea,30 A. Besson,30 D. Bloch,30 D. Bodin,30 J.-M. Brom,30 M. Cardaci,30 E. C. Chabert,30 C. Collard,30
E. Conte,30,i F. Drouhin,30,i C. Ferro,30 J.-C. Fontaine,30,i D. Gelé,30 U. Goerlach,30 S. Greder,30 P. Juillot,30
M. Karim,30,i A.-C. Le Bihan,30 Y. Mikami,30 P. Van Hove,30 F. Fassi,31 D. Mercier,31 C. Baty,32 N. Beaupere,32
112004-18
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
32
32
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
32
32
M. Bedjidian, O. Bondu, G. Boudoul, D. Boumediene, H. Brun, N. Chanon,32 R. Chierici,32 D. Contardo,32
P. Depasse,32 H. El Mamouni,32 A. Falkiewicz,32 J. Fay,32 S. Gascon,32 B. Ille,32 T. Kurca,32 T. Le Grand,32
M. Lethuillier,32 L. Mirabito,32 S. Perries,32 V. Sordini,32 S. Tosi,32 Y. Tschudi,32 P. Verdier,32 H. Xiao,32
V. Roinishvili,33 G. Anagnostou,34 M. Edelhoff,34 L. Feld,34 N. Heracleous,34 O. Hindrichs,34 R. Jussen,34
K. Klein,34 J. Merz,34 N. Mohr,34 A. Ostapchuk,34 A. Perieanu,34 F. Raupach,34 J. Sammet,34 S. Schael,34
D. Sprenger,34 H. Weber,34 M. Weber,34 B. Wittmer,34 M. Ata,35 W. Bender,35 M. Erdmann,35 J. Frangenheim,35
T. Hebbeker,35 A. Hinzmann,35 K. Hoepfner,35 C. Hof,35 T. Klimkovich,35 D. Klingebiel,35 P. Kreuzer,35
D. Lanske,35,a C. Magass,35 G. Masetti,35 M. Merschmeyer,35 A. Meyer,35 P. Papacz,35 H. Pieta,35 H. Reithler,35
S. A. Schmitz,35 L. Sonnenschein,35 J. Steggemann,35 D. Teyssier,35 M. Bontenackels,36 M. Davids,36 M. Duda,36
G. Flügge,36 H. Geenen,36 M. Giffels,36 W. Haj Ahmad,36 D. Heydhausen,36 T. Kress,36 Y. Kuessel,36 A. Linn,36
A. Nowack,36 L. Perchalla,36 O. Pooth,36 J. Rennefeld,36 P. Sauerland,36 A. Stahl,36 M. Thomas,36 D. Tornier,36
M. H. Zoeller,36 M. Aldaya Martin,37 W. Behrenhoff,37 U. Behrens,37 M. Bergholz,37,j K. Borras,37 A. Cakir,37
A. Campbell,37 E. Castro,37 D. Dammann,37 G. Eckerlin,37 D. Eckstein,37 A. Flossdorf,37 G. Flucke,37 A. Geiser,37
I. Glushkov,37 J. Hauk,37 H. Jung,37 M. Kasemann,37 I. Katkov,37 P. Katsas,37 C. Kleinwort,37 H. Kluge,37
A. Knutsson,37 D. Krücker,37 E. Kuznetsova,37 W. Lange,37 W. Lohmann,37,j R. Mankel,37 M. Marienfeld,37
I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann,37 A. B. Meyer,37 J. Mnich,37 A. Mussgiller,37 J. Olzem,37 A. Parenti,37 A. Raspereza,37
A. Raval,37 R. Schmidt,37,j T. Schoerner-Sadenius,37 N. Sen,37 M. Stein,37 J. Tomaszewska,37 D. Volyanskyy,37
R. Walsh,37 C. Wissing,37 C. Autermann,38 S. Bobrovskyi,38 J. Draeger,38 H. Enderle,38 U. Gebbert,38
K. Kaschube,38 G. Kaussen,38 R. Klanner,38 J. Lange,38 B. Mura,38 S. Naumann-Emme,38 F. Nowak,38 N. Pietsch,38
C. Sander,38 H. Schettler,38 P. Schleper,38 M. Schröder,38 T. Schum,38 J. Schwandt,38 A. K. Srivastava,38 H. Stadie,38
G. Steinbrück,38 J. Thomsen,38 R. Wolf,38 C. Barth,39 J. Bauer,39 V. Buege,39 T. Chwalek,39 W. De Boer,39
A. Dierlamm,39 G. Dirkes,39 M. Feindt,39 J. Gruschke,39 C. Hackstein,39 F. Hartmann,39 S. M. Heindl,39
M. Heinrich,39 H. Held,39 K. H. Hoffmann,39 S. Honc,39 T. Kuhr,39 D. Martschei,39 S. Mueller,39 Th. Müller,39
M. Niegel,39 O. Oberst,39 A. Oehler,39 J. Ott,39 T. Peiffer,39 D. Piparo,39 G. Quast,39 K. Rabbertz,39 F. Ratnikov,39
M. Renz,39 C. Saout,39 A. Scheurer,39 P. Schieferdecker,39 F.-P. Schilling,39 G. Schott,39 H. J. Simonis,39
F. M. Stober,39 D. Troendle,39 J. Wagner-Kuhr,39 M. Zeise,39 V. Zhukov,39,k E. B. Ziebarth,39 G. Daskalakis,40
T. Geralis,40 S. Kesisoglou,40 A. Kyriakis,40 D. Loukas,40 I. Manolakos,40 A. Markou,40 C. Markou,40
C. Mavrommatis,40 E. Petrakou,40 L. Gouskos,41 T. J. Mertzimekis,41 A. Panagiotou,41,b I. Evangelou,42 C. Foudas,42
P. Kokkas,42 N. Manthos,42 I. Papadopoulos,42 V. Patras,42 F. A. Triantis,42 A. Aranyi,43 G. Bencze,43 L. Boldizsar,43
G. Debreczeni,43 C. Hajdu,43,b D. Horvath,43,l A. Kapusi,43 K. Krajczar,43,m A. Laszlo,43 F. Sikler,43
G. Vesztergombi,43,m N. Beni,44 J. Molnar,44 J. Palinkas,44 Z. Szillasi,44 V. Veszpremi,44 P. Raics,45 Z. L. Trocsanyi,45
B. Ujvari,45 S. Bansal,46 S. B. Beri,46 V. Bhatnagar,46 N. Dhingra,46 M. Jindal,46 M. Kaur,46 J. M. Kohli,46
M. Z. Mehta,46 N. Nishu,46 L. K. Saini,46 A. Sharma,46 A. P. Singh,46 J. B. Singh,46 S. P. Singh,46 S. Ahuja,47
S. Bhattacharya,47 B. C. Choudhary,47 P. Gupta,47 S. Jain,47 S. Jain,47 A. Kumar,47 R. K. Shivpuri,47
R. K. Choudhury,48 D. Dutta,48 S. Kailas,48 S. K. Kataria,48 A. K. Mohanty,48,b L. M. Pant,48 P. Shukla,48
P. Suggisetti,48 T. Aziz,49 M. Guchait,49,n A. Gurtu,49 M. Maity,49,o D. Majumder,49 G. Majumder,49 K. Mazumdar,49
G. B. Mohanty,49 A. Saha,49 K. Sudhakar,49 N. Wickramage,49 S. Banerjee,50 S. Dugad,50 N. K. Mondal,50
H. Arfaei,51 H. Bakhshiansohi,51 S. M. Etesami,51 A. Fahim,51 M. Hashemi,51 A. Jafari,51 M. Khakzad,51
A. Mohammadi,51 M. Mohammadi Najafabadi,51 S. Paktinat Mehdiabadi,51 B. Safarzadeh,51 M. Zeinali,51
M. Abbrescia,52a,52b L. Barbone,52a,52b C. Calabria,52a,52b A. Colaleo,52a D. Creanza,52a,52c N. De Filippis,52a,52c
M. De Palma,52a,52b A. Dimitrov,52a L. Fiore,52a G. Iaselli,52a,52c L. Lusito,52a,52b,b G. Maggi,52a,52c M. Maggi,52a
N. Manna,52a,52b B. Marangelli,52a,52b S. My,52a,52c S. Nuzzo,52a,52b N. Pacifico,52a,52b G. A. Pierro,52a
A. Pompili,52a,52b G. Pugliese,52a,52c F. Romano,52a,52c G. Roselli,52a,52b G. Selvaggi,52a,52b L. Silvestris,52a
R. Trentadue,52a S. Tupputi,52a,52b G. Zito,52a G. Abbiendi,53a A. C. Benvenuti,53a D. Bonacorsi,53a
S. Braibant-Giacomelli,53a,53b P. Capiluppi,53a,53b A. Castro,53a,53b F. R. Cavallo,53a M. Cuffiani,53a,53b
G. M. Dallavalle,53a F. Fabbri,53a A. Fanfani,53a,53b D. Fasanella,53a P. Giacomelli,53a M. Giunta,53a C. Grandi,53a
S. Marcellini,53a M. Meneghelli,53a,53b A. Montanari,53a F. L. Navarria,53a,53b F. Odorici,53a A. Perrotta,53a
F. Primavera,53a A. M. Rossi,53a,53b T. Rovelli,53a,53b G. Siroli,53a,53b R. Travaglini,53a,53b S. Albergo,54a,54b
G. Cappello,54a,54b M. Chiorboli,54a,54b,b S. Costa,54a,54b A. Tricomi,54a,54b C. Tuve,54a G. Barbagli,55a
V. Ciulli,55a,55b C. Civinini,55a R. D’Alessandro,55a,55b E. Focardi,55a,55b S. Frosali,55a,55b E. Gallo,55a C. Genta,55a
P. Lenzi,55a,55b M. Meschini,55a S. Paoletti,55a G. Sguazzoni,55a A. Tropiano,55a,b L. Benussi,56 S. Bianco,56
112004-19
32
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
56,p
56
56
S. Colafranceschi,
F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo, P. Fabbricatore, R. Musenich,57 A. Benaglia,58a,58b
F. De Guio,58a,58b,b L. Di Matteo,58a,58b A. Ghezzi,58a,58b,b M. Malberti,58a,58b S. Malvezzi,58a A. Martelli,58a,58b
A. Massironi,58a,58b D. Menasce,58a L. Moroni,58a M. Paganoni,58a,58b D. Pedrini,58a S. Ragazzi,58a,58b N. Redaelli,58a
S. Sala,58a T. Tabarelli de Fatis,58a,58b V. Tancini,58a,58b S. Buontempo,59a C. A. Carrillo Montoya,59a
A. Cimmino,59a,59b A. De Cosa,59a,59b M. De Gruttola,59a,59b F. Fabozzi,59a,q A. O. M. Iorio,59a L. Lista,59a
M. Merola,59a,59b P. Noli,59a,59b P. Paolucci,59a P. Azzi,60a N. Bacchetta,60a P. Bellan,60a,60b D. Bisello,60a,60b
A. Branca,60a R. Carlin,60a,60b P. Checchia,60a M. De Mattia,60a,60b T. Dorigo,60a U. Dosselli,60a F. Fanzago,60a
F. Gasparini,60a,60b U. Gasparini,60a,60b P. Giubilato,60a,60b A. Gresele,60a,60c S. Lacaprara,60a I. Lazzizzera,60a,60c
M. Margoni,60a,60b M. Mazzucato,60a A. T. Meneguzzo,60a,60b M. Nespolo,60a L. Perrozzi,60a,b N. Pozzobon,60a,60b
P. Ronchese,60a,60b F. Simonetto,60a,60b E. Torassa,60a M. Tosi,60a,60b S. Vanini,60a,60b P. Zotto,60a,60b
G. Zumerle,60a,60b P. Baesso,61a,61b U. Berzano,61a C. Riccardi,61a,61b P. Torre,61a,61b P. Vitulo,61a,61b C. Viviani,61a,61b
M. Biasini,62a,62b G. M. Bilei,62a B. Caponeri,62a,62b L. Fanò,62a,62b P. Lariccia,62a,62b A. Lucaroni,62a,62b,b
G. Mantovani,62a,62b M. Menichelli,62a A. Nappi,62a,62b A. Santocchia,62a,62b L. Servoli,62a S. Taroni,62a,62b
M. Valdata,62a,62b R. Volpe,62a,62b,b P. Azzurri,63a,63c G. Bagliesi,63a J. Bernardini,63a,63b T. Boccali,63a,b
G. Broccolo,63a,63c R. Castaldi,63a R. T. D’Agnolo,63a,63c R. Dell’Orso,63a F. Fiori,63a,63b L. Foà,63a,63c A. Giassi,63a
A. Kraan,63a F. Ligabue,63a,63c T. Lomtadze,63a L. Martini,63a A. Messineo,63a,63b F. Palla,63a F. Palmonari,63a
S. Sarkar,63a,63c A. T. Serban,63a P. Spagnolo,63a R. Tenchini,63a G. Tonelli,63a,63b,b A. Venturi,63a,b P. G. Verdini,63a
L. Barone,64a,64b F. Cavallari,64a D. Del Re,64a,64b E. Di Marco,64a,64b M. Diemoz,64a D. Franci,64a,64b M. Grassi,64a
E. Longo,64a,64b G. Organtini,64a,64b A. Palma,64a,64b F. Pandolfi,64a,64b,b R. Paramatti,64a S. Rahatlou,64a,64b
N. Amapane,65a,65b R. Arcidiacono,65a,65c S. Argiro,65a,65b M. Arneodo,65a,65c C. Biino,65a C. Botta,65a,65b,b
N. Cartiglia,65a R. Castello,65a,65b M. Costa,65a,65b N. Demaria,65a A. Graziano,65a,65b,b C. Mariotti,65a
M. Marone,65a,65b S. Maselli,65a E. Migliore,65a,65b G. Mila,65a,65b V. Monaco,65a,65b M. Musich,65a,65b
M. M. Obertino,65a,65c N. Pastrone,65a M. Pelliccioni,65a,65b,b A. Romero,65a,65b M. Ruspa,65a,65c R. Sacchi,65a,65b
V. Sola,65a,65b A. Solano,65a,65b A. Staiano,65a D. Trocino,65a,65b A. Vilela Pereira,65a,65b,b F. Ambroglini,66a,66b
S. Belforte,66a F. Cossutti,66a G. Della Ricca,66a,66b B. Gobbo,66a D. Montanino,66a,66b A. Penzo,66a S. G. Heo,67
S. Chang,68 J. Chung,68 D. H. Kim,68 G. N. Kim,68 J. E. Kim,68 D. J. Kong,68 H. Park,68 D. Son,68 D. C. Son,68
Zero Kim,69 J. Y. Kim,69 S. Song,69 S. Choi,70 B. Hong,70 M. Jo,70 H. Kim,70 J. H. Kim,70 T. J. Kim,70 K. S. Lee,70
D. H. Moon,70 S. K. Park,70 H. B. Rhee,70 E. Seo,70 S. Shin,70 K. S. Sim,70 M. Choi,71 S. Kang,71 H. Kim,71 C. Park,71
I. C. Park,71 S. Park,71 G. Ryu,71 Y. Choi,72 Y. K. Choi,72 J. Goh,72 J. Lee,72 S. Lee,72 H. Seo,72 I. Yu,72
M. J. Bilinskas,73 I. Grigelionis,73 M. Janulis,73 D. Martisiute,73 P. Petrov,73 T. Sabonis,73 H. Castilla Valdez,74
E. De La Cruz Burelo,74 R. Lopez-Fernandez,74 A. Sánchez Hernández,74 L. M. Villasenor-Cendejas,74
S. Carrillo Moreno,75 F. Vazquez Valencia,75 H. A. Salazar Ibarguen,76 E. Casimiro Linares,77 A. Morelos Pineda,77
M. A. Reyes-Santos,77 P. Allfrey,78 D. Krofcheck,78 P. H. Butler,79 R. Doesburg,79 H. Silverwood,79 M. Ahmad,80
I. Ahmed,80 M. I. Asghar,80 H. R. Hoorani,80 W. A. Khan,80 T. Khurshid,80 S. Qazi,80 M. Cwiok,81 W. Dominik,81
K. Doroba,81 A. Kalinowski,81 M. Konecki,81 J. Krolikowski,81 T. Frueboes,82 R. Gokieli,82 M. Górski,82
M. Kazana,82 K. Nawrocki,82 K. Romanowska-Rybinska,82 M. Szleper,82 G. Wrochna,82 P. Zalewski,82
N. Almeida,83 A. David,83 P. Faccioli,83 P. G. Ferreira Parracho,83 M. Gallinaro,83 P. Martins,83 P. Musella,83
A. Nayak,83 P. Q. Ribeiro,83 J. Seixas,83 P. Silva,83 J. Varela,83,b H. K. Wöhri,83 I. Belotelov,84 P. Bunin,84
M. Finger,84 M. Finger, Jr.,84 I. Golutvin,84 A. Kamenev,84 V. Karjavin,84 G. Kozlov,84 A. Lanev,84 P. Moisenz,84
V. Palichik,84 V. Perelygin,84 S. Shmatov,84 V. Smirnov,84 A. Volodko,84 A. Zarubin,84 N. Bondar,85 V. Golovtsov,85
Y. Ivanov,85 V. Kim,85 P. Levchenko,85 V. Murzin,85 V. Oreshkin,85 I. Smirnov,85 V. Sulimov,85 L. Uvarov,85
S. Vavilov,85 A. Vorobyev,85 Yu. Andreev,86 S. Gninenko,86 N. Golubev,86 M. Kirsanov,86 N. Krasnikov,86
V. Matveev,86 A. Pashenkov,86 A. Toropin,86 S. Troitsky,86 V. Epshteyn,87 V. Gavrilov,87 V. Kaftanov,87,a
M. Kossov,87,b A. Krokhotin,87 N. Lychkovskaya,87 G. Safronov,87 S. Semenov,87 V. Stolin,87 E. Vlasov,87
A. Zhokin,87 E. Boos,88 M. Dubinin,88,r L. Dudko,88 A. Ershov,88 A. Gribushin,88 O. Kodolova,88 I. Lokhtin,88
S. Obraztsov,88 S. Petrushanko,88 L. Sarycheva,88 V. Savrin,88 A. Snigirev,88 V. Andreev,89 M. Azarkin,89
I. Dremin,89 M. Kirakosyan,89 S. V. Rusakov,89 A. Vinogradov,89 I. Azhgirey,90 S. Bitioukov,90 V. Grishin,90,b
V. Kachanov,90 D. Konstantinov,90 A. Korablev,90 V. Krychkine,90 V. Petrov,90 R. Ryutin,90 S. Slabospitsky,90
A. Sobol,90 L. Tourtchanovitch,90 S. Troshin,90 N. Tyurin,90 A. Uzunian,90 A. Volkov,90 P. Adzic,91,s M. Djordjevic,91
D. Krpic,91,s J. Milosevic,91 M. Aguilar-Benitez,92 J. Alcaraz Maestre,92 P. Arce,92 C. Battilana,92 E. Calvo,92
M. Cepeda,92 M. Cerrada,92 N. Colino,92 B. De La Cruz,92 C. Diez Pardos,92 D. Domı́nguez Vázquez,92
112004-20
57
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
92
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
92
C. Fernandez Bedoya, J. P. Fernández Ramos, A. Ferrando, J. Flix,92 M. C. Fouz,92 P. Garcia-Abia,92
O. Gonzalez Lopez,92 S. Goy Lopez,92 J. M. Hernandez,92 M. I. Josa,92 G. Merino,92 J. Puerta Pelayo,92
I. Redondo,92 L. Romero,92 J. Santaolalla,92 C. Willmott,92 C. Albajar,93 G. Codispoti,93 J. F. de Trocóniz,93
J. Cuevas,94 J. Fernandez Menendez,94 S. Folgueras,94 I. Gonzalez Caballero,94 L. Lloret Iglesias,94
J. M. Vizan Garcia,94 J. A. Brochero Cifuentes,95 I. J. Cabrillo,95 A. Calderon,95 M. Chamizo Llatas,95
S. H. Chuang,95 J. Duarte Campderros,95 M. Felcini,95,t M. Fernandez,95 G. Gomez,95 J. Gonzalez Sanchez,95
C. Jorda,95 P. Lobelle Pardo,95 A. Lopez Virto,95 J. Marco,95 R. Marco,95 C. Martinez Rivero,95 F. Matorras,95
F. J. Munoz Sanchez,95 J. Piedra Gomez,95,u T. Rodrigo,95 A. Ruiz Jimeno,95 L. Scodellaro,95 M. Sobron Sanudo,95
I. Vila,95 R. Vilar Cortabitarte,95 D. Abbaneo,96 E. Auffray,96 G. Auzinger,96 P. Baillon,96 A. H. Ball,96 D. Barney,96
A. J. Bell,96,v D. Benedetti,96 C. Bernet,96,d W. Bialas,96 P. Bloch,96 A. Bocci,96 S. Bolognesi,96 H. Breuker,96
G. Brona,96 K. Bunkowski,96 T. Camporesi,96 E. Cano,96 G. Cerminara,96 T. Christiansen,96 J. A. Coarasa Perez,96
B. Curé,96 D. D’Enterria,96 A. De Roeck,96 F. Duarte Ramos,96 A. Elliott-Peisert,96 B. Frisch,96 W. Funk,96
A. Gaddi,96 S. Gennai,96 G. Georgiou,96 H. Gerwig,96 D. Gigi,96 K. Gill,96 D. Giordano,96 F. Glege,96
R. Gomez-Reino Garrido,96 M. Gouzevitch,96 P. Govoni,96 S. Gowdy,96 L. Guiducci,96 M. Hansen,96 J. Harvey,96
J. Hegeman,96 B. Hegner,96 C. Henderson,96 G. Hesketh,96 H. F. Hoffmann,96 A. Honma,96 V. Innocente,96 P. Janot,96
E. Karavakis,96 P. Lecoq,96 C. Leonidopoulos,96 C. Lourenço,96 A. Macpherson,96 T. Mäki,96 L. Malgeri,96
M. Mannelli,96 L. Masetti,96 F. Meijers,96 S. Mersi,96 E. Meschi,96 R. Moser,96 M. U. Mozer,96 M. Mulders,96
E. Nesvold,96,b M. Nguyen,96 T. Orimoto,96 L. Orsini,96 E. Perez,96 A. Petrilli,96 A. Pfeiffer,96 M. Pierini,96
M. Pimiä,96 G. Polese,96 A. Racz,96 G. Rolandi,96,w T. Rommerskirchen,96 C. Rovelli,96,x M. Rovere,96 H. Sakulin,96
C. Schäfer,96 C. Schwick,96 I. Segoni,96 A. Sharma,96 P. Siegrist,96 M. Simon,96 P. Sphicas,96,y D. Spiga,96
M. Spiropulu,96,r F. Stöckli,96 M. Stoye,96 P. Tropea,96 A. Tsirou,96 A. Tsyganov,96 G. I. Veres,96,m P. Vichoudis,96
M. Voutilainen,96 W. D. Zeuner,96 W. Bertl,97 K. Deiters,97 W. Erdmann,97 K. Gabathuler,97 R. Horisberger,97
Q. Ingram,97 H. C. Kaestli,97 S. König,97 D. Kotlinski,97 U. Langenegger,97 F. Meier,97 D. Renker,97 T. Rohe,97
J. Sibille,97,z A. Starodumov,97,aa P. Bortignon,98 L. Caminada,98,bb Z. Chen,98 S. Cittolin,98 G. Dissertori,98
M. Dittmar,98 J. Eugster,98 K. Freudenreich,98 C. Grab,98 A. Hervé,98 W. Hintz,98 P. Lecomte,98 W. Lustermann,98
C. Marchica,98,bb P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol,98 P. Meridiani,98 P. Milenovic,98,cc F. Moortgat,98 P. Nef,98
F. Nessi-Tedaldi,98 L. Pape,98 F. Pauss,98 T. Punz,98 A. Rizzi,98 F. J. Ronga,98 M. Rossini,98 L. Sala,98
A. K. Sanchez,98 M.-C. Sawley,98 B. Stieger,98 L. Tauscher,98,a A. Thea,98 K. Theofilatos,98 D. Treille,98
C. Urscheler,98 R. Wallny,98,t M. Weber,98 L. Wehrli,98 J. Weng,98 E. Aguiló,99 C. Amsler,99 V. Chiochia,99
S. De Visscher,99 C. Favaro,99 M. Ivova Rikova,99 B. Millan Mejias,99 C. Regenfus,99 P. Robmann,99 A. Schmidt,99
H. Snoek,99 L. Wilke,99 Y. H. Chang,100 K. H. Chen,100 W. T. Chen,100 S. Dutta,100 A. Go,100 C. M. Kuo,100
S. W. Li,100 W. Lin,100 M. H. Liu,100 Z. K. Liu,100 Y. J. Lu,100 J. H. Wu,100 S. S. Yu,100 P. Bartalini,101 P. Chang,101
Y. H. Chang,101 Y. W. Chang,101 Y. Chao,101 K. F. Chen,101 W.-S. Hou,101 Y. Hsiung,101 K. Y. Kao,101 Y. J. Lei,101
R.-S. Lu,101 J. G. Shiu,101 Y. M. Tzeng,101 M. Wang,101 A. Adiguzel,102 M. N. Bakirci,102,dd S. Cerci,102,ee
C. Dozen,102 I. Dumanoglu,102 E. Eskut,102 S. Girgis,102 G. Gokbulut,102 Y. Guler,102 E. Gurpinar,102 I. Hos,102
E. E. Kangal,102 T. Karaman,102 A. Kayis Topaksu,102 A. Nart,102 G. Onengut,102 K. Ozdemir,102 S. Ozturk,102
A. Polatoz,102 K. Sogut,102,ff B. Tali,102 H. Topakli,102,dd D. Uzun,102 L. N. Vergili,102 M. Vergili,102
C. Zorbilmez,102 I. V. Akin,103 T. Aliev,103 S. Bilmis,103 M. Deniz,103 H. Gamsizkan,103 A. M. Guler,103
K. Ocalan,103 A. Ozpineci,103 M. Serin,103 R. Sever,103 U. E. Surat,103 E. Yildirim,103 M. Zeyrek,103
M. Deliomeroglu,104 D. Demir,104,gg E. Gülmez,104 A. Halu,104 B. Isildak,104 M. Kaya,104,hh O. Kaya,104,hh
S. Ozkorucuklu,104,ii N. Sonmez,104,jj L. Levchuk,105 P. Bell,106 F. Bostock,106 J. J. Brooke,106 T. L. Cheng,106
E. Clement,106 D. Cussans,106 R. Frazier,106 J. Goldstein,106 M. Grimes,106 M. Hansen,106 D. Hartley,106
G. P. Heath,106 H. F. Heath,106 B. Huckvale,106 J. Jackson,106 L. Kreczko,106 S. Metson,106 D. M. Newbold,106,kk
K. Nirunpong,106 A. Poll,106 S. Senkin,106 V. J. Smith,106 S. Ward,106 L. Basso,107,ll K. W. Bell,107 A. Belyaev,107,ll
C. Brew,107 R. M. Brown,107 B. Camanzi,107 D. J. A. Cockerill,107 J. A. Coughlan,107 K. Harder,107 S. Harper,107
B. W. Kennedy,107 E. Olaiya,107 D. Petyt,107 B. C. Radburn-Smith,107 C. H. Shepherd-Themistocleous,107
I. R. Tomalin,107 W. J. Womersley,107 S. D. Worm,107 R. Bainbridge,108 G. Ball,108 J. Ballin,108 R. Beuselinck,108
O. Buchmuller,108 D. Colling,108 N. Cripps,108 M. Cutajar,108 G. Davies,108 M. Della Negra,108 J. Fulcher,108
D. Futyan,108 A. Guneratne Bryer,108 G. Hall,108 Z. Hatherell,108 J. Hays,108 G. Iles,108 G. Karapostoli,108
L. Lyons,108 A.-M. Magnan,108 J. Marrouche,108 R. Nandi,108 J. Nash,108 A. Nikitenko,108,aa A. Papageorgiou,108
M. Pesaresi,108 K. Petridis,108 M. Pioppi,108,mm D. M. Raymond,108 N. Rompotis,108 A. Rose,108 M. J. Ryan,108
112004-21
92
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
108
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
108
108
108
C. Seez, P. Sharp, A. Sparrow, A. Tapper, S. Tourneur, M. Vazquez Acosta,108 T. Virdee,108
S. Wakefield,108 D. Wardrope,108 T. Whyntie,108 M. Barrett,109 M. Chadwick,109 J. E. Cole,109 P. R. Hobson,109
A. Khan,109 P. Kyberd,109 D. Leslie,109 W. Martin,109 I. D. Reid,109 L. Teodorescu,109 K. Hatakeyama,110 T. Bose,111
E. Carrera Jarrin,111 A. Clough,111 C. Fantasia,111 A. Heister,111 J. St. John,111 P. Lawson,111 D. Lazic,111 J. Rohlf,111
D. Sperka,111 L. Sulak,111 A. Avetisyan,112 S. Bhattacharya,112 J. P. Chou,112 D. Cutts,112 A. Ferapontov,112
U. Heintz,112 S. Jabeen,112 G. Kukartsev,112 G. Landsberg,112 M. Narain,112 D. Nguyen,112 M. Segala,112 T. Speer,112
K. V. Tsang,112 M. A. Borgia,113 R. Breedon,113 M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,113 D. Cebra,113 S. Chauhan,113
M. Chertok,113 J. Conway,113 P. T. Cox,113 J. Dolen,113 R. Erbacher,113 E. Friis,113 W. Ko,113 A. Kopecky,113
R. Lander,113 H. Liu,113 S. Maruyama,113 T. Miceli,113 M. Nikolic,113 D. Pellett,113 J. Robles,113 S. Salur,113
T. Schwarz,113 M. Searle,113 J. Smith,113 M. Squires,113 M. Tripathi,113 R. Vasquez Sierra,113 C. Veelken,113
V. Andreev,114 K. Arisaka,114 D. Cline,114 R. Cousins,114 A. Deisher,114 J. Duris,114 S. Erhan,114 C. Farrell,114
J. Hauser,114 M. Ignatenko,114 C. Jarvis,114 C. Plager,114 G. Rakness,114 P. Schlein,114,a J. Tucker,114 V. Valuev,114
J. Babb,115 R. Clare,115 J. Ellison,115 J. W. Gary,115 F. Giordano,115 G. Hanson,115 G. Y. Jeng,115 S. C. Kao,115
F. Liu,115 H. Liu,115 A. Luthra,115 H. Nguyen,115 G. Pasztor,115,nn A. Satpathy,115 B. C. Shen,115,a R. Stringer,115
J. Sturdy,115 S. Sumowidagdo,115 R. Wilken,115 S. Wimpenny,115 W. Andrews,116 J. G. Branson,116 G. B. Cerati,116
E. Dusinberre,116 D. Evans,116 F. Golf,116 A. Holzner,116 R. Kelley,116 M. Lebourgeois,116 J. Letts,116
B. Mangano,116 J. Muelmenstaedt,116 S. Padhi,116 C. Palmer,116 G. Petrucciani,116 H. Pi,116 M. Pieri,116
R. Ranieri,116 M. Sani,116 V. Sharma,116,b S. Simon,116 Y. Tu,116 A. Vartak,116 F. Würthwein,116 A. Yagil,116
D. Barge,117 R. Bellan,117 C. Campagnari,117 M. D’Alfonso,117 T. Danielson,117 K. Flowers,117 P. Geffert,117
J. Incandela,117 C. Justus,117 P. Kalavase,117 S. A. Koay,117 D. Kovalskyi,117 V. Krutelyov,117 S. Lowette,117
N. Mccoll,117 V. Pavlunin,117 F. Rebassoo,117 J. Ribnik,117 J. Richman,117 R. Rossin,117 D. Stuart,117 W. To,117
J. R. Vlimant,117 A. Bornheim,118 J. Bunn,118 Y. Chen,118 M. Gataullin,118 D. Kcira,118 V. Litvine,118 Y. Ma,118
A. Mott,118 H. B. Newman,118 C. Rogan,118 V. Timciuc,118 P. Traczyk,118 J. Veverka,118 R. Wilkinson,118 Y. Yang,118
R. Y. Zhu,118 B. Akgun,119 R. Carroll,119 T. Ferguson,119 Y. Iiyama,119 D. W. Jang,119 S. Y. Jun,119 Y. F. Liu,119
M. Paulini,119 J. Russ,119 N. Terentyev,119 H. Vogel,119 I. Vorobiev,119 J. P. Cumalat,120 M. E. Dinardo,120
B. R. Drell,120 C. J. Edelmaier,120 W. T. Ford,120 B. Heyburn,120 E. Luiggi Lopez,120 U. Nauenberg,120 J. G. Smith,120
K. Stenson,120 K. A. Ulmer,120 S. R. Wagner,120 S. L. Zang,120 L. Agostino,121 J. Alexander,121 A. Chatterjee,121
S. Das,121 N. Eggert,121 L. J. Fields,121 L. K. Gibbons,121 B. Heltsley,121 W. Hopkins,121 A. Khukhunaishvili,121
B. Kreis,121 V. Kuznetsov,121 G. Nicolas Kaufman,121 J. R. Patterson,121 D. Puigh,121 D. Riley,121 A. Ryd,121
X. Shi,121 W. Sun,121 W. D. Teo,121 J. Thom,121 J. Thompson,121 J. Vaughan,121 Y. Weng,121 L. Winstrom,121
P. Wittich,121 A. Biselli,122 G. Cirino,122 D. Winn,122 S. Abdullin,123 M. Albrow,123 J. Anderson,123 G. Apollinari,123
M. Atac,123 J. A. Bakken,123 S. Banerjee,123 L. A. T. Bauerdick,123 A. Beretvas,123 J. Berryhill,123 P. C. Bhat,123
I. Bloch,123 F. Borcherding,123 K. Burkett,123 J. N. Butler,123 V. Chetluru,123 H. W. K. Cheung,123 F. Chlebana,123
S. Cihangir,123 M. Demarteau,123 D. P. Eartly,123 V. D. Elvira,123 S. Esen,123 I. Fisk,123 J. Freeman,123 Y. Gao,123
E. Gottschalk,123 D. Green,123 K. Gunthoti,123 O. Gutsche,123 A. Hahn,123 J. Hanlon,123 R. M. Harris,123
J. Hirschauer,123 B. Hooberman,123 E. James,123 H. Jensen,123 M. Johnson,123 U. Joshi,123 R. Khatiwada,123
B. Kilminster,123 B. Klima,123 K. Kousouris,123 S. Kunori,123 S. Kwan,123 P. Limon,123 R. Lipton,123 J. Lykken,123
K. Maeshima,123 J. M. Marraffino,123 D. Mason,123 P. McBride,123 T. McCauley,123 T. Miao,123 K. Mishra,123
S. Mrenna,123 Y. Musienko,123,oo C. Newman-Holmes,123 V. O’Dell,123 S. Popescu,123,pp R. Pordes,123
O. Prokofyev,123 N. Saoulidou,123 E. Sexton-Kennedy,123 S. Sharma,123 A. Soha,123 W. J. Spalding,123 L. Spiegel,123
P. Tan,123 L. Taylor,123 S. Tkaczyk,123 L. Uplegger,123 E. W. Vaandering,123 R. Vidal,123 J. Whitmore,123 W. Wu,123
F. Yang,123 F. Yumiceva,123 J. C. Yun,123 D. Acosta,124 P. Avery,124 D. Bourilkov,124 M. Chen,124
G. P. Di Giovanni,124 D. Dobur,124 A. Drozdetskiy,124 R. D. Field,124 M. Fisher,124 Y. Fu,124 I. K. Furic,124
J. Gartner,124 S. Goldberg,124 B. Kim,124 S. Klimenko,124 J. Konigsberg,124 A. Korytov,124 A. Kropivnitskaya,124
T. Kypreos,124 K. Matchev,124 G. Mitselmakher,124 L. Muniz,124 Y. Pakhotin,124 C. Prescott,124 R. Remington,124
M. Schmitt,124 B. Scurlock,124 P. Sellers,124 N. Skhirtladze,124 D. Wang,124 J. Yelton,124 M. Zakaria,124 C. Ceron,125
V. Gaultney,125 L. Kramer,125 L. M. Lebolo,125 S. Linn,125 P. Markowitz,125 G. Martinez,125 J. L. Rodriguez,125
T. Adams,126 A. Askew,126 D. Bandurin,126 J. Bochenek,126 J. Chen,126 B. Diamond,126 S. V. Gleyzer,126 J. Haas,126
S. Hagopian,126 V. Hagopian,126 M. Jenkins,126 K. F. Johnson,126 H. Prosper,126 S. Sekmen,126 V. Veeraraghavan,126
M. M. Baarmand,127 B. Dorney,127 S. Guragain,127 M. Hohlmann,127 H. Kalakhety,127 R. Ralich,127
I. Vodopiyanov,127 M. R. Adams,128 I. M. Anghel,128 L. Apanasevich,128 Y. Bai,128 V. E. Bazterra,128 R. R. Betts,128
112004-22
108
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
128
128
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
128
J. Callner, R. Cavanaugh, C. Dragoiu, E. J. Garcia-Solis, C. E. Gerber,128 D. J. Hofman,128
S. Khalatyan,128 F. Lacroix,128 C. O’Brien,128 C. Silvestre,128 A. Smoron,128 D. Strom,128 N. Varelas,128
U. Akgun,129 E. A. Albayrak,129 B. Bilki,129 K. Cankocak,129 W. Clarida,129 F. Duru,129 C. K. Lae,129
E. McCliment,129 J.-P. Merlo,129 H. Mermerkaya,129 A. Mestvirishvili,129 A. Moeller,129 J. Nachtman,129
C. R. Newsom,129 E. Norbeck,129 J. Olson,129 Y. Onel,129 F. Ozok,129 S. Sen,129 J. Wetzel,129 T. Yetkin,129 K. Yi,129
B. A. Barnett,130 B. Blumenfeld,130 A. Bonato,130 C. Eskew,130 D. Fehling,130 G. Giurgiu,130 A. V. Gritsan,130
Z. J. Guo,130 G. Hu,130 P. Maksimovic,130 S. Rappoccio,130 M. Swartz,130 N. V. Tran,130 A. Whitbeck,130
P. Baringer,131 A. Bean,131 G. Benelli,131 O. Grachov,131 M. Murray,131 D. Noonan,131 V. Radicci,131 S. Sanders,131
J. S. Wood,131 V. Zhukova,131 T. Bolton,132 I. Chakaberia,132 A. Ivanov,132 M. Makouski,132 Y. Maravin,132
S. Shrestha,132 I. Svintradze,132 Z. Wan,132 J. Gronberg,133 D. Lange,133 D. Wright,133 A. Baden,134
M. Boutemeur,134 S. C. Eno,134 D. Ferencek,134 J. A. Gomez,134 N. J. Hadley,134 R. G. Kellogg,134 M. Kirn,134
Y. Lu,134 A. C. Mignerey,134 K. Rossato,134 P. Rumerio,134 F. Santanastasio,134 A. Skuja,134 J. Temple,134
M. B. Tonjes,134 S. C. Tonwar,134 E. Twedt,134 B. Alver,135 G. Bauer,135 J. Bendavid,135 W. Busza,135 E. Butz,135
I. A. Cali,135 M. Chan,135 V. Dutta,135 P. Everaerts,135 G. Gomez Ceballos,135 M. Goncharov,135 K. A. Hahn,135
P. Harris,135 Y. Kim,135 M. Klute,135 Y.-J. Lee,135 W. Li,135 C. Loizides,135 P. D. Luckey,135 T. Ma,135 S. Nahn,135
C. Paus,135 D. Ralph,135 C. Roland,135 G. Roland,135 M. Rudolph,135 G. S. F. Stephans,135 K. Sumorok,135
K. Sung,135 E. A. Wenger,135 S. Xie,135 M. Yang,135 Y. Yilmaz,135 A. S. Yoon,135 M. Zanetti,135 P. Cole,136
S. I. Cooper,136 P. Cushman,136 B. Dahmes,136 A. De Benedetti,136 P. R. Dudero,136 G. Franzoni,136 J. Haupt,136
K. Klapoetke,136 Y. Kubota,136 J. Mans,136 V. Rekovic,136 R. Rusack,136 M. Sasseville,136 A. Singovsky,136
L. M. Cremaldi,137 R. Godang,137 R. Kroeger,137 L. Perera,137 R. Rahmat,137 D. A. Sanders,137 D. Summers,137
K. Bloom,138 S. Bose,138 J. Butt,138 D. R. Claes,138 A. Dominguez,138 M. Eads,138 J. Keller,138 T. Kelly,138
I. Kravchenko,138 J. Lazo-Flores,138 C. Lundstedt,138 H. Malbouisson,138 S. Malik,138 G. R. Snow,138 U. Baur,139
A. Godshalk,139 I. Iashvili,139 A. Kharchilava,139 A. Kumar,139 S. P. Shipkowski,139 K. Smith,139 G. Alverson,140
E. Barberis,140 D. Baumgartel,140 O. Boeriu,140 M. Chasco,140 K. Kaadze,140 S. Reucroft,140 J. Swain,140
D. Wood,140 J. Zhang,140 A. Anastassov,141 A. Kubik,141 N. Odell,141 R. A. Ofierzynski,141 B. Pollack,141
A. Pozdnyakov,141 M. Schmitt,141 S. Stoynev,141 M. Velasco,141 S. Won,141 L. Antonelli,142 D. Berry,142
M. Hildreth,142 C. Jessop,142 D. J. Karmgard,142 J. Kolb,142 T. Kolberg,142 K. Lannon,142 W. Luo,142 S. Lynch,142
N. Marinelli,142 D. M. Morse,142 T. Pearson,142 R. Ruchti,142 J. Slaunwhite,142 N. Valls,142 J. Warchol,142
M. Wayne,142 J. Ziegler,142 B. Bylsma,143 L. S. Durkin,143 J. Gu,143 C. Hill,143 P. Killewald,143 K. Kotov,143
T. Y. Ling,143 M. Rodenburg,143 G. Williams,143 N. Adam,144 E. Berry,144 P. Elmer,144 D. Gerbaudo,144 V. Halyo,144
P. Hebda,144 A. Hunt,144 J. Jones,144 E. Laird,144 D. Lopes Pegna,144 D. Marlow,144 T. Medvedeva,144 M. Mooney,144
J. Olsen,144 P. Piroué,144 X. Quan,144 H. Saka,144 D. Stickland,144 C. Tully,144 J. S. Werner,144 A. Zuranski,144
J. G. Acosta,145 X. T. Huang,145 A. Lopez,145 H. Mendez,145 S. Oliveros,145 J. E. Ramirez Vargas,145
A. Zatserklyaniy,145 E. Alagoz,146 V. E. Barnes,146 G. Bolla,146 L. Borrello,146 D. Bortoletto,146 A. Everett,146
A. F. Garfinkel,146 Z. Gecse,146 L. Gutay,146 Z. Hu,146 M. Jones,146 O. Koybasi,146 A. T. Laasanen,146
N. Leonardo,146 C. Liu,146 V. Maroussov,146 P. Merkel,146 D. H. Miller,146 N. Neumeister,146 K. Potamianos,146
I. Shipsey,146 D. Silvers,146 A. Svyatkovskiy,146 H. D. Yoo,146 J. Zablocki,146 Y. Zheng,146 P. Jindal,147
N. Parashar,147 C. Boulahouache,148 V. Cuplov,148 K. M. Ecklund,148 F. J. M. Geurts,148 J. H. Liu,148 J. Morales,148
B. P. Padley,148 R. Redjimi,148 J. Roberts,148 J. Zabel,148 B. Betchart,149 A. Bodek,149 Y. S. Chung,149 R. Covarelli,149
P. de Barbaro,149 R. Demina,149 Y. Eshaq,149 H. Flacher,149 A. Garcia-Bellido,149 P. Goldenzweig,149 Y. Gotra,149
J. Han,149 A. Harel,149 D. C. Miner,149 D. Orbaker,149 G. Petrillo,149 D. Vishnevskiy,149 M. Zielinski,149 A. Bhatti,150
L. Demortier,150 K. Goulianos,150 G. Lungu,150 C. Mesropian,150 M. Yan,150 O. Atramentov,151 A. Barker,151
D. Duggan,151 Y. Gershtein,151 R. Gray,151 E. Halkiadakis,151 D. Hidas,151 D. Hits,151 A. Lath,151 S. Panwalkar,151
R. Patel,151 A. Richards,151 K. Rose,151 S. Schnetzer,151 S. Somalwar,151 R. Stone,151 S. Thomas,151 G. Cerizza,152
M. Hollingsworth,152 S. Spanier,152 Z. C. Yang,152 A. York,152 J. Asaadi,153 R. Eusebi,153 J. Gilmore,153
A. Gurrola,153 T. Kamon,153 V. Khotilovich,153 R. Montalvo,153 C. N. Nguyen,153 I. Osipenkov,153 J. Pivarski,153
A. Safonov,153 S. Sengupta,153 A. Tatarinov,153 D. Toback,153 M. Weinberger,153 N. Akchurin,154 C. Bardak,154
J. Damgov,154 C. Jeong,154 K. Kovitanggoon,154 S. W. Lee,154 P. Mane,154 Y. Roh,154 A. Sill,154 I. Volobouev,154
R. Wigmans,154 E. Yazgan,154 E. Appelt,155 E. Brownson,155 D. Engh,155 C. Florez,155 W. Gabella,155 W. Johns,155
P. Kurt,155 C. Maguire,155 A. Melo,155 P. Sheldon,155 J. Velkovska,155 M. W. Arenton,156 M. Balazs,156 S. Boutle,156
M. Buehler,156 S. Conetti,156 B. Cox,156 B. Francis,156 R. Hirosky,156 A. Ledovskoy,156 C. Lin,156 C. Neu,156
112004-23
128
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
156
157
157
157
R. Yohay, S. Gollapinni, R. Harr, P. E. Karchin, P. Lamichhane,157 M. Mattson,157 C. Milstène,157
A. Sakharov,157 M. Anderson,158 M. Bachtis,158 J. N. Bellinger,158 D. Carlsmith,158 S. Dasu,158 J. Efron,158
L. Gray,158 K. S. Grogg,158 M. Grothe,158 R. Hall-Wilton,158,b M. Herndon,158 P. Klabbers,158 J. Klukas,158
A. Lanaro,158 C. Lazaridis,158 J. Leonard,158 D. Lomidze,158 R. Loveless,158 A. Mohapatra,158 D. Reeder,158
I. Ross,158 A. Savin,158 W. H. Smith,158 J. Swanson,158 and M. Weinberg158
(CMS Collaboration)
1
Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
Institut für Hochenergiephysik der OeAW, Wien, Austria
3
National Centre for Particle and High Energy Physics, Minsk, Belarus
4
Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium
5
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
6
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
7
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
8
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
9
Université de Mons, Mons, Belgium
10
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
11
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
12
Instituto de Fisica Teorica, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil
13
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Sofia, Bulgaria
14
University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
15
Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
16
State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
17
Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
18
Technical University of Split, Split, Croatia
19
University of Split, Split, Croatia
20
Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
21
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
22
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics,
Cairo, Egypt
23
National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
24
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
25
Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
26
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
27
Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules, IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
28
DSM/IRFU, CEA/Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
29
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, IN2P3-CNRS, Palaiseau, France
30
Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, Université de Strasbourg, Université de Haute Alsace Mulhouse,
CNRS/IN2P3, Strasbourg, France
31
Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3), Villeurbanne, France
32
Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3, Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
33
E. Andronikashvili Institute of Physics, Academy of Science, Tbilisi, Georgia
34
RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany
35
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
36
RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
37
Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
38
University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
39
Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Karlsruhe, Germany
40
Institute of Nuclear Physics Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
41
University of Athens, Athens, Greece
42
University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece
43
KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Budapest, Hungary
44
Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
45
University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
46
Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
47
University of Delhi, Delhi, India
48
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
49
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research - EHEP, Mumbai, India
2
112004-24
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
50
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research - HECR, Mumbai, India
Institute for Research and Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
52a
INFN Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy
52b
Università di Bari, Bari, Italy
52c
Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy
53a
INFN Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
53b
Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
54a
INFN Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy
54b
Università di Catania, Catania, Italy
55a
INFN Sezione di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
55b
Università di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
56
INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
57
INFN Sezione di Genova, Genova, Italy
58a
INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy
58b
Università di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy
59a
INFN Sezione di Napoli, Napoli, Italy
59b
Università di Napoli ‘‘Federico II’’, Napoli, Italy
60a
INFN Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy
60b
Università di Padova, Padova, Italy
60c
Università di Trento (Trento), Padova, Italy
61a
INFN Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
61b
Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
62a
INFN Sezione di Perugia, Perugia, Italy
62b
Università di Perugia, Perugia, Italy
63a
INFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
63b
Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
63c
Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
64a
INFN Sezione di Roma, Roma, Italy
64b
Università di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
65a
INFN Sezione di Torino, Torino, Italy
65b
Università di Torino, Torino, Italy
65c
Università del Piemonte Orientale (Novara)
66a
INFN Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy
66b
Università di Trieste, Trieste, Italy
67
Kangwon National University, Chunchon, Korea
68
Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
69
Chonnam National University, Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
70
Korea University, Seoul, Korea
71
University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea
72
Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea
73
Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
74
Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
75
Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
76
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
77
Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosı́, San Luis Potosı́, Mexico
78
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
79
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
80
National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
81
Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
82
Soltan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland
83
Laboratório de Instrumentação e Fı́sica Experimental de Partı́culas, Lisboa, Portugal
84
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
85
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St Petersburg), Russia
86
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
87
Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
88
Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
89
P. N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
90
State Research Center of Russian Federation, Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia
91
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
92
Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
93
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
51
112004-25
\V. KHACHATRYAN et al.
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
94
Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
Instituto de Fı́sica de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
96
CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
97
Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
98
Institute for Particle Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
99
Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
100
National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
101
National Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
102
Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey
103
Middle East Technical University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
104
Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
105
National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
106
University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
107
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
108
Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
109
Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
110
Baylor University, Waco, USA
111
Boston University, Boston, USA
112
Brown University, Providence, USA
113
University of California, Davis, Davis, USA
114
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA
115
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
116
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
117
University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, USA
118
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
119
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
120
University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, USA
121
Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
122
Fairfield University, Fairfield, USA
123
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
124
University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
125
Florida International University, Miami, USA
126
Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
127
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
128
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, USA
129
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
130
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
131
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
132
Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA
133
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
134
University of Maryland, College Park, USA
135
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA
136
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
137
University of Mississippi, University, USA
138
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
139
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
140
Northeastern University, Boston, USA
141
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
142
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, USA
143
The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
144
Princeton University, Princeton, USA
145
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
146
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
147
Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, USA
148
Rice University, Houston, USA
149
University of Rochester, Rochester, USA
150
The Rockefeller University, New York, USA
151
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
152
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
153
Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
154
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
95
112004-26
UPSILON PRODUCTION CROSS SECTION IN pp . . .
PHYSICAL REVIEW D 83, 112004 (2011)
155
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
157
Wayne State University, Detroit, USA
158
University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA
156
a
Deceased.
Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland.
c
Also at Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre, Brazil.
d
Also at Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, IN2P3-CNRS, Palaiseau, France.
e
Also at Suez Canal University, Suez, Egypt.
f
Also at Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt.
g
Also at Soltan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland.
h
Also at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA.
i
Also at Université de Haute-Alsace, Mulhouse, France.
j
Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany.
k
Also at Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.
l
Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary.
m
Also at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
n
Also at Tata Institute of Fundamental Research - HECR, Mumbai, India.
o
Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India.
p
Also at Facoltà Ingegneria Università di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy.
q
Also at Università della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy.
r
Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA.
s
Also at Faculty of Physics of University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
t
Also at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.
u
Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
v
Also at Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland.
w
Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’ INFN, Pisa, Italy.
x
Also at INFN Sezione di Roma, Università di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy.
y
Also at University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
z
Also at The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA.
aa
Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia.
bb
Also at Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland.
cc
Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia.
dd
Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey.
ee
Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey.
ff
Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey.
gg
Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey.
hh
Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey.
ii
Also at Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey.
jj
Also at Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.
kk
Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom.
ll
Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
mm
Also at INFN Sezione di Perugia, Università di Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
nn
Also at KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Budapest, Hungary.
oo
Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia.
pp
Also at Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering (IFIN-HH), Bucharest, Romania.
b
112004-27